COURT OF APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 29 September 1933, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL

LOSS OF EYESIGHT. (Per Press Association, Copyright). WELLINGTON, 'September 28. The Court of Appeal to-day was engaged hearing argument upon the case of Jboyes v. Smyth, stated for its opinion by Mr Justice Frazer, Judge of the Arbitration Court.

On 24th September } 1932, at Auckland, Neville Albert Bayes, of Titirangi, issued a writ in the Court of Arbitration against ALred John Smyth, of Waitakere, a farmer, alleging that, while clearing ,gorse on Smyths property, a piece of gorse penetrated his leit eye, and, as a result, he lost the permanent use of that eye. He claimed £l74’ 14s Bd, being the deficiency in respect of payment for a period of total incapacity, and the amount due for the total loss of the sight of one eye, as fixed by the second schedule of the Workers’Compensation Act. The action came on for hearing on 23rd February, but was adjourned for a joint medical report from the medical advisers of both parties. That report was that the leit eye was without its correcting lens, and had 'such defective vision as to be industrially useless, and, as far as binocular vision was concerned, was useless, except for the purpose of self preservation. The injury, however, did not entail any loss of ability on the part cf the plaintiff to perform his work as a farm hand. It was also agreed between the parties that the left eye, with the aid of appropriate glosses, was capable of normal vision, but only with the/right eye' out of action, owing to the inability of the two eyes to function together. Counsel for the defendant contended that on these, facts the action was on all fours with previous decisions of the Arbitration Court where it had been held that such injury did not entitle the plaintiff to compensation for the total loss of the sight of one

eye. Counsel forjthte, plaintiff, however, requested the judge of the Arbitration Court to state a case, on the facts, for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which was -done, and that case was being argued to-day. The question asked for the opinion of the Court as whether the plaintiff had suffered the total logs of the sight' of one eye within the' meaning of the second schedule of the Workers’ Compensation Act, .1922. When' the case was called this , afternoon, Mr O’Leary, counsel for the defendant, raised a preliminary objection that the Court of' Arbitration had no power to state the case which it had stated. The question, asked of the Court of Appeal was a question of fact,■•And the Workers’ Compensation Act empowered the Arbitration Court to state. Cases for the Court of Appeal only as to questions of law, and not as to questions of fact. • . The Court said that it would consider that ooint after it had heard he rest of the argument. ' , • Mr Dunn then proceeded to address the court of appeal, and was doing so when the Court adjourned.