ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1931, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

SITTING AT HOKITIKA.. MONDAY, JUNE Ist. ) , (Before His Honor Mr Justice Frazer (President), Mr W. Cecil Prime (Employers representative) and Mr A. 1 L. Monteith (Workers represent--1 at-ive). ’ The Court sat at 10 n.rn. 1 case; adjourned. Harold Leslie Jones (Mr O’JRfcgan) v. T. A. Davie s and P. Davies, claim lor compensation, weekly payments. His Honor said he understood this case was in progress of settlement and he proposed to adjourn the ease to Grevmouth on Thursday next. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Thomas Lincoln of Hokitika, labourer v. Francis Sparks, of Greynumtii, carpenter. Mr Murdoch for plaintiff, .Mr Hannan for defendant, claim for £3 (is per week for period of incapacity from time of accident and lump sum of compensation. It was agreed that the accident took place on 21fit. May, 1929 at Sea View Mental Hos--1 pital, Hokitika, and that plaintiff suffered an injury to the vertebrae of his neck. Thomas Lincoln gave evidence be was a labourer residing at Hokitika, and was 64 years of age, was born at Hokitika. Was on the 21st, May, 1929 engaged in mixing concrete when he was caught in the lift, was carried up about lb feet, where the dropped on his head. Was l attended by Dreßhird for six visits. Had u lot of pain and it fltill continued when he did any work, the pain getting too bad to continue. Went to Grey on 25th. November and was examined by lfy. Moore and again later was further examined. There was no class of work that he could do except that of, a labourer. Before working for Sparks, was getting 20s per day in South "Westland for six months. He worked for Sparks at 18s per day and overtime, for five weeks. Was examined at Christchurch by Dr. Will and Dr. Be van Brown. He could not work. The pains he got stopped him. His average earnings were £4 19s. He asked the Court to assess compensation for his injuries. To His Honor—When he laid down at night the pain go.es.'l away. He could sleep well. '■; ..'A 1 , To Mr Haiman-nie jhad ' not attempted to get work.* He'had accept-; ed £3 3s per week as compensation, up. ■ to the present| To His Honor—-He had no idea what the compensation he was entitled to. To Mr Murdodh—He had not asked for work because; lie could not do it Joseph Radomski gave evidence that i lie was a carpenter, residing at Hoki ! tika. Knew plaintiff, ’ worked with him on 21st. May, 1929. His work was 18s per day and overtime. When i the acciclent happened Lincoln was , lifted by the mixing bucket about 6 feet and lie then dropped on his head on the mixing board. Lincoln whs unconscious when they lifted him up, Nellie Toomey gave evidence she resided in Rokitilca with her husband. Plaintiff is her brother. After the accident plaintiff, was brought to her house in a very bad condition. He was a good worxer, When brought home he suffered intense pain. He required constant attention for six weeks. When he tries to,: work he has to corn's jn to lie down. • David Stevenson gave evidence lie was a contractor residing at Hokitika. | Had known Lincoln all his. .own life. Hie had never met the equal of Tin* coin as a labourer, He* wag an honest ; worker. He was unfitted for any other j work. He quite believed Lincoln wuen lw? said he could not do any work. Dr, James Leslie Will gave evidence he practised in. Christchurch. Saw Lincoln on Nov. 21st. last year iu Christchurch. Saw him with Dr. Bevan Brown and also saw X-ray plate, taken by Dr. Guthrie. Lincoln in November, complained of a twist of his neck and pain. The pain was worst when he tried to do anything. In a physjcial examination there was a certain amount of grating and the deformity to the * bead was obvious. The witness rex- ■ plained the X-ray plate produced. ...The 1 injury was a partial dislocation. In * November lie had given Lincoln an 80 r per cent, damage. Saw plaintiff yes- e fie relay and his deformity was worse c than in November and that he would l be ill advised now to do any work, and * lie would treat him as a total loss. c The injuvied were typical of an ac- 8 cident of the nature as described by ‘ Radomski. T Mr Murdoch here read the affadavit 11 of Dr. Bevan Brown of Christchurch, f who has since left for England. Witness stated he had agreed with c Dr. Bevan Brown, but his later ex- c animation had caused Him to alter his previous opinion, now finding his in- y juries were now much more severe. a To Mr Hannan—He was of opinion i that work would increase the injury, t The pain was a symptom of work cans- r ing injury. s This was the case for the plaintiff. 1 Mr Hannan called evidence for the t defence. which had made an offer i for payment for 30 per cent. i ' Dr. James Francis Moore, deposed t he was Superintendent of Grey River s Hospital. He had examined the plain, i tiff on three occasions, the last on ] December, 1930. He produced X-ray < plates of the injuries. < Regarding the present condition of l plaintiff, he thought that he had im- i proved from his examination to-day. He thought he was now in a stationary condition. Witness gave particulars of statement by plaintiff. He took it that the condition of plaintiff had improved. There was evidence of a fracture, with a displacement backwards. He thought he was in no more danger by working than he was

before. Plaintiff can now move his head better than when he first saw him, or six months ago. A considerable amount of movement of the neck would canoe great pain. He could do a certain amount of work, but has a certain amount of disability. He assessed the damage at thirty per cent. To Mr Murdoch—He considered plaintiff a truthful person. He belijev. ed the man was absolutely honest. There was present a. factured dislocation of a bone. He felt hie could work, but lie would have to have a spell, and lie would have pain if ho worked. At the request of the Court, Drs. Moore and Will examined plaintiff. Oil returning Dr. Moore stated that on a violent movement of the head there was a grating, hut on a moderate movement such as witness carried out in the morning there was no grating. This was the case for the defence. Dr. Will was recalled by the Court in reference to statements by Dr. Moore on which the evidence had differed. Witness still thought plaintiff was a total loss. The Court adjourned to consider their judgment and returned at 12.5 p.m. rt’ His Honor said there was a conflict of medical opinion... After referring to this evidence his Honor said that looking at all the evidence it was not reasonable to ask a man of 64 years to go back to bard work. They had not quite accepted Dr. Will’s 100 per - cent.. but had agreed that it was nearly a total loss. The average earnings were Awed at £4 19s per week. There would be full.compensation ullbwed oil j This until February 21st, 1981, and ; thereafter 90 per cent-, of -total die- - 1 ability. Costs were allowed counsel £l2 12s, Dr.. Will’s £1 7s, X-ray fete £3 -Is, and witnesses according to Magistrate’s Court scale. The total allowed plaintiff was £697 10s Id. The Court adjourned at 12.30 p.m, to 2.15 p.m.