COMPENSATION CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1929, Page 1

COMPENSATION CLAIM

REJECTED BY ARBITRATION COURT. 3Y TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSN'., COPYRIGHT. INVERCARGILL, May 21. In the Arbitration Court to-day, before Justice Frazer, Cyril Gordon Donaldson, of Invercargill, proceeded on a claim for compensation against Decimus Arthur Reginald Belcher, of Woodlands, farmer. Plaintiff’s statement of claim set out that on November 29, 1928, lie was employed by defendant as a labourer at a weekly wane of 25s and “ found,” making the total money value of bis remuneration £2 10s per week. He was engaged in fencing, and, in the course of this work, had occasion to go to a motor sited or workshop on defendant’s farm for a pair of pliers on a workbench, and when be'was moving other tools about an explosion occurred, and plaintiff was severely injured. 'I be explosion. it was claimed, was caused either by the falling' of a detonator or a cartridge stowed by the defendant in the shed, by plaintiff accidentally striking such explosive in his search for the pliers. As the result ol the accident, plaintiff would suffer a permanent partial disablement, consequent on the 'loss of his right eye, and the serious impairing of the sight of his left eye, also the loss of the first joint of the fore linger of his left hand, and the loss of part of the first joint ol the thumb of his loft band. Plaintiff was a minor and was 18 years old on May 2, 1928. Prior to his employment with defendant. ho was engaged on a sawmill tramway, and intended returning to sawmill work on reaching his full age. A man of full age employed on the work plaintiff had in view received a weekly wage of £5 Os. Plaintiff claimed therefore ,CH> L3s asueoinpensation lor ten weeks total disablement, £712 12s compensation for 85 per cent permanent disablement, based on Ins expected earning power of £1 bs per week- Cl for medical attention, costs of the action, and such further reliefs as the Court might decree. « In the statement of defence, delendant admitted employing plmntifl as a labourer, and that plnintiff met with the accident on November 29tli. It was denied that the accident occurred in the course of his employment. Defendant denied knowledge of the extent of the injuries received hy plaintill, and of the cause of the accident. After hearing evidence, His Honour said that there was a serious conflict