COMPENSATION CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1376, 20 March 1915, Page 3

COMPENSATION CASE.

ACCIDENT AT A flaxmill

A claim for compensation for injuries sustained in an accident at a flaxmill was heard by the Arbitration Court, Wellington, on Thursday. His Honour Mr Justice fptringer presided, aud bad with him Messrs E. F. Duthieaud J. A. M’Cullough (representatives of the employers aud workers respectively.) The plaintiff was John William Presling (Mr P. J. O’Regan) aud the defendant the Poplar Flaxmilliug Company (Mr A. A, S. Menteatb).

The statement of claim alleged that plaintiff, while employed as a flax-washer at defendant’s mill on 24th November, 1913, came into contact with a portion of the machinery, and sustained a fractured skull aud other injuries. He was an inmate o . aerston

N. District Hospital ualil 15th May, 1914. Plaintiff alleged he was partially aud permanently incapacitated by reason of the injuries, aud he claimed compensation at the rate of 30s. per week for the lime he was totally disabled, a lump sum equivalent to the cash value oi the weekly payments properly due in accordance with the Workers’ Compensation Act, and a suspensory award ior a nominal weekly sum, should the Court see fit to award less than the maximum amount of compensation, as well as the costs of the action. The medical evidence, taken at Palmerston in August last, was to the effect that a portion of the frontal bone of plaintiff's skull had beeu removed, leaving a large opening in the skull, where the brain was enclosed only by soft tissue. The defendant company admitted the accident, but denied permanent total disablement, and claimed that the accident did not arise out of plaintiff’s employment, but was due to his misconduct in bringing to the mill aud consuming, during the course of his employment, a quantity of alcoholic liquor. The company further pleaded no liability, on the ground that plaintiff had uot commenced ins action within six months alter the accident.

Mr O'Regau maintained that the accident was brought in time. Plaintiff had relied on assurances that liability would be admitted, and was unaware that liability was denied until he claimed payment. Counsel contended that the Court bad jurisdiction to hear the case on the ground that the delay in suing was occasioned by reasonable cause, and that the employer was not prejudiced in his defence by the delay. Counsel argued that there was no evidence of misconduct on plaintiff's part, but that, even if there were, the defence of serious and wilful misconduct was not open to defend ant, for the reason that plaintiff had sustained serious and permanent disablement within the meaning of section 15 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. His Honour slated that, though the circumstances were suspicious, be did not consider that drunkenness had been proved.

The Court reserved its decision