COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5058, 29 November 1926, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

WORKMAN LOSES AN EYE. A KARANGAHAKE CASE;. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. The sequel to an accident on the site Of the old Talisman gold mine at Karangahake on March 4; when a workman lost his right eye .through being struck by a flying rivet while engaged in dismantling an iron tank, was heard in the Arbitration Court on Wednesday. Sidney Septimus Ratliff (Mr Luxford), labourer, of Kar.augahake, sought to recover £852 compensation and £1 medical expenses from R. M- Aitken and Son (Mr Richmond), engineers of Auckland and Karangahake. Mr Luxford said the case would be one of some importance, in view of the question to be decided whether plaintiff was an employee or |n independent contractor, although the point was far from novel in compensation cases. Defendants were the holders of several licenses over various properties in the Ohinemuri district to extract gold and concentrates from the soil. From January to a few days prior to the accident plaintiff was indisputably, a workmajn. He was engaged in digging a tailrace on the old Talisman mine property for .the purpose of sluicing. In February plaintiff and another man were told that they would have to take a few days/ holiday owing to scarcity of work offering. Plaintiff said he would have to seek employment elsewhere 1 , as he could not afford to cease work. Mr Aitken, junr., then suggested that they should break up some iron cyanide tanks on the property, for which he would pay £7 a tank. ENTRIES IN WAGES BOOK. The two men agreed, and Aitken said he would call on them for other work if he- wanted theiin at any time. During the time the jobs were in progress Aitken'visited the men several times and gave' directions concerning the disposal of the iron sheets from the tajnks. Extra, men were; also put on tb help move the tanks on to level ground. ' It would also be proved that plaintiff and the other man were called away for other work while employed on the tanks, ■ v . . Plaintiff, in evidence, said he was unable to follow hisi usual employment since he had lost his eye, and had been forced to resort to digging drains in Pajeroa. When they undertook to dismantle: the tanks Aitken supplied them with tools and gave an assurance that the men need not worry about insurance policies.

Alexander Aitken, junior partner in Aitkep and Son; said plaintiff had interviewed him in connection with the wc’rk on the tanks, but insurance was. not . mentioned ,a it all. He never gave instruction concerning methods to be used in dismantling the, tanks, although he had given advice to the men. The woi-k was very tedious, and he told plaintiff he would give him the first offer of any wages work. He did employ him on wages for about an hour on one occasion, although it was not incumbent on plaintiff to do the work unless he desired. EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF. In reply to Mi’ Luxford witness, admitted that he had made an alteration in the wages book for the week ending March 6. He had apparently entered the book up in advance and in error placed plaintiff and Nelson, his fellow-worker on the tanks on the book.

Mr Luxford: You must have been a bit of Oi clairvoyant if yota entered the book up beforehand; because you have, marked both men absent on the day'after the accident, and Ratcliffe absent the following day. /

Witness : Well, the-*book is pretty old ; I do* not quite remember. Robert Mark Aitken, .senior partner in .the defendant firm, said he had no knowledge of the entry of the names of Ratliff and Nelson on the wages book. No mention wiajs made of it by his son. He understood that .the men were contractors^nd. told them they were not. insured.

Mr Richmond said that as far as the provisions of the Mining Act were concerned he relied upon the result of a previous claim, in which defendants were not held to be undertaking mining operations. A great deal had been made of the entry of the two najmes in the wages book, but no signature had been appended, and it was not even contended by Ratliff and Nelson that they were wage-earners. After a retirement to consider the case His Honour Mr Justice Fraser said that Mr Mo’ntieth was of opinion that plaintiff was employed under a piece-work arrangement, but the remaining members dft the Court agreed that he was working under contract. The evidence on certain points had been very contradictory, and the Court did not knCw at times which side; to believe. Judgment would be for defendant.