COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1924, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

AUCKLAND. Sept- I--Arising out ol an accident at Devonport on April 3tli. when .lubes Emile I -e Scelle, a member of the Devonport Eire Brigade, was killed tln-jiigh being thrown from the mot ir engine. his widow Alice Maud !.<• Scelle, at tin* Arbitration Cuur.t claimed from lln- Devonporl Borough Council compensation, other relief, and costs. The statement of claim set out that deceased was a general labourer and Deputy-Superintendent of the Bevoiiport hire Brigade, at £-i n ,, r quarter, and additional sums for each lire attended. Outlining the phiintiH's case, Mr Ostler said the i|Ueslion was whether a member of the Eire Brigade was a worker under the Workers' Compensation Act. In no sense could the Brigade 111- termed a volunteer brigade, as provision was made for the payment ol salaries to ollicers. besides extra money for fires, and ollicers were subject to a month’s notice of dismissal. Deceased could he only an independent contractor. a volunteer, or a worker, and as he -mild not lie called either an independent contractor or a volunteer lie must he a worker. Ilis average-weekly wage, apart from the brigade, was gl Ss. but in addition lie bad the right to sleep at'tlie lire station, and this lie did. For nearly 12 years plniniill and lice husband had been b\ mutual consent. ’I here were no Couit proceedings and no deed oi separation, l-'i-om the date jf parting dc( eased had rc-'ularlv paid plaintiff £1 n " 0! ;k maintenance. lie also continually paid sums to the children, and it would nver.ig*? not loss tlutn Cl ll*s :l l-’or the defence Mr Rremlergasl submitted that the deceased, a- a member oi the brigade, was not a uorkei as tielined under the W.n kefs's C’ompei.sation Act. lie (pioted Section 2->!> 1,1 the Municipal Corporations Act. winch provides that payments to members ol Eire Brigades out of municipal lands shall he made l.v way of gratuity, or as a Council thinks Pn. Ciinii'el -übniitted that a “gratuity" meant not wages hut something in the n.'tiire ot a gift or present. Members ol a nngndo were he. eniitelided. in the position "• volunteers, and the by-laws, although providing for the payment of salaries, did not constitute them workers Hide was also Hie £2OO for which the Borough Council spute .\eiu.-> ng i members of the hrigad- wind ".ni l be paid. On lhe question of dependency counsel submitted that net-eased had not paid Cl a week mamtename to Ids wife, hut towards the maintenance «l the younger children. 'Pile Court reserved its decision.