J. RIELLY v. A. ABBOTT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 277, 20 November 1914, Page 3

J. RIELLY v. A. ABBOTT.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. A sitting of the Arbitration Court q-as held in New Plymouth yesterday composed of Mr Justice Stringer, Mr W. Scott (Employers’ representative), and Mr J. A. McCullough (employees’ representative), who heard the case in which James Rielly (hotel porter), claimed £424 as damages against Mrs ■ Abbott in respect of injuries sustained while working on her farm at Whangamomona, which, resulted in his right leg having to be amputated. Mr John, stone (instructed by Mr W. G. Malone, Stratford), appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Blair (of Chapman, Skenvit, Tripp and Blair), with him Mr E. S. Rutherfurd (of Anderson, Rgtherfurd and Macalister, Stratford), for the defendant. The defence was a total denial that plaintiff had ever been engaged to work on the farm, an 4 that he had gone there with a son of the defendant and that they were merely filling in time waiting for a contract. It was also denied that it was at the behest of Harold Abbott that plaintiff submitted to medical treatment, or that Abbott had ever said anything to him about insurance. In summing up, Mr Justice Stringer said it was one of the most unsatisfactory cases so far as the evidence of both plaintiff ami defendant was concerned, that the court had had to deal with. The defendant’s version of the matter, however, seemed to the court to be more probable than the case set up by the plaintiff in view of the fact that both prior to the accident and for some considerable time subsequently, no wages had been claimed by the plaintiff. The court was of opinion that no definite contract of employment had been entered into, aad that the plaintiff and Harold Abbott were merely waiting at Whangamomona until they heard about . tfi,e proposed Aw-akino-contracts. Asemployment was not proved, it was unnecessary for the court to consider the question of .whether the plaintiff had lost his remedy under "the act owing to the excessive delay in commencing proceedings. .Mr Justice Stringer intimated, however, that the plaintiff’s claim would probably have been barred owing to the delay in commencing proceedings even if the contract of employment had been established. The court held that plaintiff had failed to establish employment by defendant, and therefore judgment was entered for defendant, who did not ask for costs.