COMPENSATION CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 18 March 1926, Page 2

COMPENSATION CASE

THE COURT’S STRICTURES. GREYMOUTH, March 18. ‘ Before Mr Justice Frazer, at the Arbitration Court yesterday, a claim for compensation to the amount of £750 funeral and medical expenses £25 9s, ami casts was brought by Black (Dobson) and others against the Grey A'alley Collieries Ltd., on the grounds that on Monday, October 12th, 1925, James Ford, the father of Mrs Bhick, died on "that date from injuries reeecived arising out of his being struck by a fall of coal and stone in consequence of which he died. The defendant company by Its Secretary had denied all liability, apart l'ror incurred funeral ami medical expenses. The plaintiffs claimed to be wholly dependent on the deceased at the time of his death for their main-

t.enauee. Lengthy evidence was called. lit giving judgment the Court said that the case was a somewhat extraordinary one. Onto, would naturally make certain allowances for n woman with a dependent- family, hut the evidence offered during tlie case, and the deliberate mis-statements contained therein, lead one to view it with hesitation. There was a strong suspicion that there was a conspiracy to defraud on tho part of the claimants. “Evidently there are some persons who hold the idea that coal companies and insurance companies are fair game,” remarked tho Judge. Continuing, His Honour stated that tliis much tlie Court was prepared to believe, that the father of Airs Black did help her, and that she was not working for more than throe months in the year. It .seemed possible that -Mrs Black lind kept up her patients all along. The Court was not satisfied with the assertion that the father had paid her continuously, hut. it would accept the evidence tha liq did assist. On account of the evidence resulting from the cross-examination, the Court had discounted the claim to a very considerable degree. A conspiracy to defraud appeared to be very strongly r indicated, hut on the assumption that Alargaret Black and Jessie Black were dependents, the Court awarded compensation to the extent of £GO, plaintill’s to pay their own costs. “I think there is nothing further to say,” remarked His Honour. “If it is necessary for the two plaintiffs who are present to enter a Court again, I trust that they will learn by their experience to-day that it is inadvisable and higlilv dangerous to tamper with the truth.”