COURT OF ARBITRATION

Hokitika Guardian, 16 March 1925, Page 3

COURT OF ARBITRATION

WESTLAND INDUSTRIAIT DISTRICT SITTING AT HOKITIKA. -MONDAY, .MARCH l(3th, 1025. (Before His Honour Judge Frazer, and .Messrs W. Scott and H. Hunter, members.) The Court sat at 10.10 a.in. SAWMILL FATALITY CLAIM. Elsie McEadyen v. Messrs Gillooly and Brown, claim for £750 compensate" iu respect to the death by accident of the plaintiff’s husband William McEadyen on 80th June, 1021, at sawmill. Kanieri Forks.

Mr AY. Joyce for plaintiff. .Mr J. A. Murdoch, with him Mr Cooke (Wellington) for the defendants. His Honour said they had been through the papers, and the only question was the amount of liability, if illlV.

-Air Cooke asked if .Air Joyce was going to nut the plaintiff in the box. In answer to His Honour. Mr .Jovce intimated he was not. .Air Cooke then asked leave to have the defence amended, to force the plaintiff to he put in the box for the plaintiff, so that the defence could cross-examine, a power they would not have if they called the witness themselves. Mr Joyce said it was an unusual application, and lie objected to the request. The defendant had made certain pleadings and they should abide by them. Mr Mu."doth expressed surprise at the attitude- of counsel for the plaintiff. The defence had frankly made admissions to enable the matter to he put clearly before the Court.

His Honoiir said the clause referred to where a mistake had been made and did not apply. The Court was not prepared to strain the rule. They thought the defence should examine the plaintiff and the Court would allow if necessary, counsel to examine as widely as possible to elicit the facts. Thomas Brown deposed he was a sawmiller, and one of the defendants. He reinenfhered the accident to Mr MoEadyen. T.atcr saw plaintiff, and advised her of the proper course to follow. Never denied liability, lie was not interested in the result; that was a matter for the insurance company. Elsie McEadyen deposed she was the wife of the late Wilburn McEadyen. At the date of the death of her husband, the house at Kanieri belonged to her 1 11' s ha in 1, valued at £l5O and the furniture also, valued at £BO. She was a laughter of the late 11. G. Diedrichs of Kokatahi. Before her father’s death die received £2OOO. At the time of u'r husband's death she had that , mioiint left. A.ier her lather's death, mil following a Supreme Court action he received on various dates, a total if £3058 13- (id out of the estate. At this • -tape the witness fainted, and ior examination "as delayed for a few nimites until she had sufficiently roovered to proceed.

Examination < out in tied : Although she did not receive the other £IOOO out of the estate, she out £SOO of it in her husband's name on fixed deposit. She did not know who got the other £SOO. She could not find out who gol the money. This made a total of £3,553

18s (id. When he died her husband had £2OO on fixed deposit, and no ourrent ai count . At the date of her husband's death she had about £2OOO on fixed deposit. If file Bank said ii was nearer £4OOO than £3OOO she would not he surprised. She had made a declaration duly signed before a solicitor, that her husband was her sole means of support and she was solely dependent on him. To Mr Joyce—The whole of her husband's earning amounting to from £5 to £0 per week were given to her and utilised in the payment of the household expeness. She had never used any of the moneys received from her lather's estate for her living expenses. No offer of n, settlement, had been received from the insurance company.

To “is Honour- ll "as only £o()(l sic received from her father before his death. She did not know what became of it.

Air Cooke addressing the Court, said the Insurance Company had been completely misled by the lalse declaration made by the plaintiff. He held it was both false and fraudulent. The Cornpanv felt that an attempt had been made to secure £730, when they were not entitled to do so. The claim was not fair to the company and' not fair to the community. It could not be said that the plaintiff was solely dependent on the deceased when she bad over £IOOO of her own money on fixed deposit. He held what the Court should award should be very nominal. Air .Joyce said as to the declaration itself, it was in a fhrm supplied by the insurance Company, lie held that the plaintiff was entitled to say that she was solely dependent on her husband right op to the time of his death, as all the moneys lie earned were utilised in her upkeep, and she did not use any of tin' money her father lolt her, to live on. The full amount should therefore he awarded.

The Court retired to decide its verdict and returned in 20 minutes.

His Honour said the case contains some unusual phases. The lacts were by no means clear in detail. ’1 bo plaintiff admitted receiving sums aggregating .C3o(!0 from her father’s estate. Pike says she was dependent on her husband insomuch as he paid over all Ins earnings. The real question to decide was the plaintiff, in fact, solely dependent on her husband's earnings. The Court was bound to scrutinise the plumtiff’s statement very closely. II she had not soent anv of the money received from her father’s state, she should have been able to <mile to the Court with a full clear statement and this had nut been done. The Court must assume therefore that she had spent some of the money from her father’s estate and to that extent was not totally dependant on her husband. In connection with the declaration he must say that, tlm clause referred to was misleading in its statement that she was solely dependant on her husband without. adding that she owned a considerable amount of money. They accepted the statement that her husband handed over the whole of his earnings, hut she should have been able to satisfy the Court of her total dependency. Afakjng (.very possible allowance lor the plaintiff's statement the Court was not i repared to accept that at least CotKl had not. been spent. The Court was sat-

isfied that plaintiff was entitled to partial dependency and awarded her £309. with funeral expenses £2l. Bs. (and ot her ebarges not. to exceed £3O) with e nmsels fee CS Bs.