ARBITRATION COURT
A CLAIM REFUSED.
(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.
DUNEDIN, May 14
Tho Arbitration Court was asked to decide in a compensation claim whether a gardener empl yed by; a medical man was entitled to claim compensation within the meaning of the Act, if lie received an injury while engaged in that work. The plaintiff alleged that while working in defendants’ garden he received personal injuries, and was unable to carry on his occupation for two months, claiming for wages. Judge Frazer said it was difficult to give a precise meaning of the word “work” in the Act, hut one would never say a doctor was carrying on the work of a gardener, nor was he a nurseryman. The Act did not apply to people working about a m \Vs house or garden. Judgment was given for- defendant.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19290514.2.44
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 14 May 1929, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
138ARBITRATION COURT Hokitika Guardian, 14 May 1929, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in