IMPORTANT DECISION.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 384, 13 July 1889, Page 5

IMPORTANT DECISION.

Thanks, July 11. A dkctsiox of considerable importance was {riven by Warden Northcroffc in the Warden's Court to-day in the case of William ITosking v. the Calcdonion (ioldmining Company, being a complaint undeV S3Ction 217 of the Mining Act, IGB6. I'laintitt sued the defendant company foi £377 damages lor injuries sustained whilssfc ■working as a tribuler in the Caledonian mine, having had his fingers crushed and the hand partially disabled thiough an accident happening to the cage in which ho was descending to his work. In giving tho judgmentwhichisofconsidcrablcimpoi tance being the iirst caeo of tho kind in the colony under the now Mining Act, the Warden said that it appealed that on the 261 h of Maich last the plaintili and thieo others entered the cage for the puipose of descending lo thoir work, and after the cage had been lowered a short distance it came against a slab protruding from tho side of the shaft. A momentary stoppage of the cage took placo,and on the slab breaking the cage fell four feet, and plaintiff, who was holding on to the top bar, sustained tho injuries for which ho sought damages by tho bonnet of tho cage flying up aiid crushing his fingers. The Warden held that it had been undoubtedly proved that the ladder or travelling-way of the Caledonian was unsafe for men to use during winding, and thifc it was the Company's duty to keep both the ladderway and the shaft in repair during the time the tributers were working in tho mine, it had been contended that a tiibuter was not a workman within the meaning of the Employers' Liability Act, but Mr Northcroft did not think this contention could be maintained, as in this case the tributer was, to all intents, a contractor, and to enable him to get to and from his work it was necessary tor him to descend and ascend the Company's shaft in tho cage. This being so, defendants were 2?rima facie liablo unless it could bo shown that all necessary precautions were taken to prevent injuries, or that plaintiff by iiis own action contributed to tho injury. Tho Warden then went on to say that the manager had inspected the shaft daily, and no miners had complained of the dangerous condition of the shaft. He held that all due precautions had been taken to prevent an accident, and that non-observance of mining regulations had not been proved, while there had also been contributory negligence by plaintiff holding on to the top bar of the cage. Judgment was thereforegiven for the defendant company, Avith costs £14 lls. It is probable that an application will be made for a re-hearing of bhe ease, or that it will be taken to the Supremo Court,