COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1327, 21 November 1914, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

RESPECTING FLAX MILL

ACCIDENT

At the sitting of the Arbitration Court at Palmerston North on Wednesday, John William Presling, of Foxton, (Mr O’Regan) claimed from the Poplar Flaxmilling Co., Ltd. (Mr Menteath) for compensation for an accident which occurred to him while employed at the defendant’s mil! at Foxton.

Plaintiff, in evidence, said that at the time of the accident he was working as a washer in the Poplar fiaxraili at Foxton, his wages bdjg P er week. On November 24, 1913, he went to work at 6 p.m. (night shift), but as the fibre in the wash started threading up on the needles about an hour and a half later, ..as suspended. Witness went to put his gum-boots and apron up where he usually kept them, when he slipped and that was all he remembered at the time. From what he learnt afterwards he had fallen into the machinery of the mill and was taken to the hospital. There he remained until May 15, 1914. The secretary ol the Flax mill Workers’ Union visited him several times in the hospital and said his claim lor compensation was being recognised. When witness came out of the hospital he found that such was not the case. To Mr Menteath : Witness acknowledged having one nip of whisky during the shift while a wash was being regulated. There was a bottle three-parts full in the mill. The bench loader asked witness to have the drink. He had had three or four drinks before stalling work. The constable at Foxton did not order him out of town in the afternoon, before he got any worse for liquor. Witness also denied that he was the cause of the mill stopping by allowing the machinery to get blocked as a result ot his alleged drunken condition and performing his work carelessly. He knew that liquor was prohibited at the mill, Witness said he could not remember Mr Ross, the manager of the mill, telling him that he had not a hope of getting his compensation, because he was drunk when the accident occurred. Witness said he had not been at work since May last. He had received no money and had been living on friends. He had tried to get work, but not with Mr Ross. Mr Ross never told him that if he would not touch drink he would give him work again. It was not a fact, either, that the Union had advised him to do no work until be received his compensation. To Mr O’Regan ; Mr Ross had never complained previous to the accident of the way witness discharged his duties. The shiftboss never complained, either, of witness’s condition on the night of the accident. Thomas Dalzieil stated that he was working at the Poplar mill when the accident occurred. He was employed as stripper-keeper, but on the day of the accident was 1 engaged on the day shift. Witness saw Presling, who was sober and without signs of drink on him. On no occasion could he have taken exception to plaintiff's conduct. To Mr Menteath; Witness did not remember telling Mr Ross that Presling’s unfitness for his work on that evening was the cause of the mill being stopped. Witness did not tell Mr Ross, either, that he saw signs of drink ou plaintiff but that he appeared fit enough for his work. Witness said he had heard that Presling had had drink during working hours. P. T. Robinson, secretary of the Flaxmiil 'Employees’ Union, said plaintiff was a member of the union. Witness saw Presling in the hospital shortly after the accident, when plaintiff asked him if be was entitled to compensation. Witness made enquiries about the compensation from the previous witness, and received a reply that it was going to be paid, although Mr Ross had first thought that plaintiff was not entitled to it. Witness told Presling the results ot his enquiries. A week after Presling left the hospital he came to witness and said Mr Ross was not going to pay him his compensation, Witness took the matter up, and took statements from others employed at the mill at the time of the accident, including one from Dalziell, the previous witness. These statements were forwarded to Mr O’Regan almost immediately.

To Mr Menteath: The union had not paid Presling any money nor had it guaranteed his board, since he came out of the hospital. Mr ,O’Regan then put in a doctor’s evidence (taken on a previous occasion) as to plaintiff’s capacity for work in the future. John Mulgrove gave evidence. He stated that he was at work in the mill at the same time as plaintiff. Presling was sober and could perform his work efficiently. To Mr Menteath : Presling had drinks in Foxtou with witness in the afternoon. While the wash was being repaired after breaking down, Presling and he had a drink of whisky. It was the plaintiff who asked him to have the liquor. Witness had had no conversation with Mr Ross since the accident. Wm. Dougail, who was employed as engine-driver at the mill, said he saw Presliug just before the accident, He seemed to be alright and certainly not the worse for liquor, The mill was badly lit and witness had asked for more light previously, The defence, as set out in the statement of defence, was a denial that when the accident occurred the plaintiff was employed by the company in its mill. The deience also alleged that the injuries arose

| out of the inebriated condition of I plaintiff, and his serious and wiliui misconduct in bringing into the mill and consuming to excess, alcoholic liquor. Wm. Ross said he was one of the partners of the Poplar Flaxmilling Co., and managing director. Witness did not hear of the accident until the following morning, when Dalziell reported the matter to him. Dalziell told witness that Presling and another man had had drink the previous night. He had discharged the latter man and also stated that the drink was the cause of the stopping of the mill. Dalziell also said he noticed that plaintiff bad had drink, but thought he might be able to work alright. Dalziell also mentioned that liquor bad been drunk during work, and Presling had got so bad that the man m charge had decided to stop. Just as the engine was slowing down, plaintiff, who had gone round towards bis washer, somehow managed to get caught in the belting. Plaintiff was badly injured. When Presling saw witness about the compensation, witness told him that he did not think he would get it —the accident should be a lesson to him to leave drink alone. Plaintiff replied that he would never touch another drop. Witness never spoke to Daziell about the compensation. There was a very strict rule that no liquor was to be brought to the mill. Presliug had never made application to witness for work. The company was covered by insurance, consequently it marie no difference to witness whether plaintiff got compensa-. lion or not. The mill hands had actually stepped work before the accident happened. To Mr O’Regan; If plaintiff would undertake to leave liquor alone witness would be only too pleased to find him employment. He bad never had occasion to complain of plaintiff’s conduct ou any previous occasion. The needles of the washer threadedup very frequently, and it was not necessarily the washer who was to blame. This concluded the defendant’s case.

The case was adjourned at this stage to enable the evidence of another witness to be taken at Wellington.