ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 264, 29 March 1911, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE MARAKOPA CASE. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held yesterday before His Honor Mr. Justice Sim and Messrs. W Scott and J. A. McCullougli, assessors, to inquire into a claim for compensation brought forward by Sidney St. John Lidia'rd, master mariner, at present residing in Wellington, against Frederick Iredale, of Awakino. The plaintiff claimed £SOO damages, on account of blindness, alleged to have been caused by an accident whilst unloading defendant's vessel, of which lie was master at Marakopa in October, 1909. Mr. P. J. oJßegan,0 J Regan, of Wellington, appeared for the plaintiff, whilst defendant was represented by Mr. T. S. Weston, with him Mr. C. H. Weston. In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. O'Regan stated that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant from May 22, 1909, until January 10, 1910, as master of the s.s. Pitoitoi, trading between Waitara and Awakino and intervening ports, at a salary of £2O per month. On the 12th October, 1909, the vessel was being unloaded at Marakopa, and the defendant was standing on the wharf handing cases of kerosene from the top deck. While so engaged, lie felt a sudden pain as if he had "ricked" his back, and immediately collapsed, and at the same time his vision became impaired. He was assisted to his bunk, and on arriving at Waitara next day was compelled to lay up for a week. ' The sight improved somewhat, but was never quite so perfect, and ultimately became so seriously affected that lie was obliged to relinquish his employment. He then went to Dunedin, and consulted Dr. Lindo Ferguson in April, 1910, who : pronounced him to be suffering from atrophy of the optic nerves, as a result of which he became totally blind. Dr. Ferguson, whose evidence had been taken by commission, was of opinion '. that the optic nerves had become af- '. fected through a hemorrhage at the '. base of the brain, and that the hemorrhage was due to the physical strain involved in lifting the cases. That being so, counsel continued, the case was clearly one of injury by accident within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act. Ordinarily, of course, it was no part of a master's duty to assist in i discharging a vessel, but on a small steamer of 19 tons the position was necessarily different, and it would be proved that it was regularly part of the : master's duty to work as one of the crew. The medical evidence as to the cause of the blindness would be con-! flicting, but he submitted that the great weight of the evidence, corroborated a.k : / it was by the circumstances of the case, would satisfy the court that plaintiff i had lost his sight in consequence of an 1 '" accident. Counsel did not disguise the fact, however, that there were other difficulties to contend against. The Workers' Compensation Act denied its benefits to anyone whose remuneration exceeded £5 per week. Capt. Lidiard's money wages were £2O per calendar month, or £240 a year. That in itself was £2O per annum less than the'limit-'■ fixed by the statute, but counsel was unable to deny that something had to be allowed for the cost of keep, and il he was unable to show that after adding that the plaintiff's remuneration exceeded £5 per week, then the action must fail. This was the first time in New Zealand that this defence had been raised. There were English authorities on the point, but he would argue that none of those were similar to this case, and evidence would be given which, he hoped, would convince the court that plaintiff's remuneration did not exceed £5 per week . There was another defence—that the claim had not been -i made within the time prescribed by the Act, viz., six months. The court had discretion, however, to admit a claim"; in a proper case, not withstanding lapse l ! of time. This was pre-eminently a casd'«i for the exercise of that jurisdiction be-"''' cause, until plaintiff saw Dr. Ferguson in April, 1910, he did not realise the ' seriousness of his condition, and the six months had then lapsed. Counsel was : sure that if the plaintiff met the two 1 ': more serious defences, the court would h not deny him compensation merely for ; the lapse of time. While the case was 'i admittedly difficult, it was interesting i from a legal point of view. It was alst> ] a very sad one, for Captain Lidiard was < a married man in the prime of life, who i was condemned to walk in darkness fov ! the rest of his days. '- i Plaintiff' deposed that on May '22!. 1 1909, he was appointed master of the ' s.s. Pitoitoi, a vessel of 19 tons, trading •■ between Waitara and Marakopa. Oil": October 12th, 1909, at Marakopa, the 1 vessel was discharging cargo. He stood-i on the wharf and took cases of" kero-', sene from two of the crew, and stacked : them on the wharf. It was high water ; at the time, and the vessel's hurricane .deck was Bft. fiin. from the wharf level;'" Witness described how he handled the'; cases. While at this work, he got a sharp click in the back, and thought , something had snapped. He leaned against the ship's side for a few min-'. utes, and could hardly see when he lift : ' ed his head up. After sitting on the:. kerosene cases for about five minutes,, lie was assisted on board by two men.. , This was about noon. Two hours late'r'i he crawled out of bunk and sat on a case on deck. Mr. Stanley, storekeeper, ', gave him some embrocation, with which the firemen rubbed his back. The vessel left for Waitara on the 13th. Witness' had to send a man to look at the state of the bar, as he was unable to go himself. He had considerable diffi- j culty in, getting to the bridge. Everything appeared as though he was looking through a pane of glass on which it had rained. On arrival at Waitara he went straight home to bed, where hn remained for a week. When the vessel was- due to depart, he went away with her. He could see well enough for that. He remained in charge until January 9. His back was very bad, and he had to go about with a stick. Mr. Ogle, chemist, gave him something to rub on his back. On January 10 he consulted: Dr. Wylie. Previous to this he had met Dr. Clarklge, who said it was his back, lie visited Dr. Wylie about twice a weekj until he left for Wellington. After being in Wellington a week he called on| Dr. McCavin, who examined -him, but' did not prescribe for him. Witness con-' tinned Dr. Wylie's treatment. On April 11th he was examined by Dr. Ferguson, l of Dunedin, who prescribed for him, I and said he would advise Dr. Wvlic as to his treatment. Witness then realised, his condition was hopeless, and took! legal advice. Prior to the accident his-i eyesight was splendid. About a month before the accident he used glasses for ( reading for the first time. He was not quite sure when. He gave Is for the, glasses at Marakopa. He would be 4o] years of age in July, and prior to this his health had been good, with the exception of tvphoid fever in Western Australia in 1894. He would swear hi bad never had a certain venereal disease imputed against him. A in Waitara told witness Dr. Wyli- w>s treating hiin for this disc.se. and h ■■- was so disgusted that he threw mvjv I tie medicine at once. He w;is at home whenever the ship was at Waitara. The Tessel had about, eleven or twelve difIferent cooks during the few months he was in charge, and only two of these

were proper cooks. When any work had to be done, the cooks had to lend a hand. They generally used wood for cooking. Witness always assisted in getting the wood. The vessel carried passengers occasionally.

I Cross-examined by Mr. T. S. Weston: Plaintiff admitted that the day after, the accident he took the wheel for ahout j an hour before reaching Waitara. After the accident witness had no other symptoms except the pain in the back and his bad eyesight. During the time witness was laid up in Waitara, he wat assisted about the house by his wife and daughter. The ship was also detained in Waitara for about a week by bad weather. Had she left sooner he would probably have gone with her. On returning to the ship, he did no hard laborious work, but helped as far as his strength would permit. Witness was also cross-examined at considerable length in regard to the , venereal disease mentioned in the case, and also regarding his visits to Drs. Claridge, Wylie and McGavin. He also saw Dr. Walker and Dr. Kendall, and a chemist named Shaw in Wellington. Witness denied that before he had joined the ship he had informed Sampson that his eyesight was bad and everything looked murky and hazy. He also denied telling Mr. Grimmer so prior to the accident. He was not a teetotaller, buti he never was the worse for drink. Hel had put the steamer ashore on several occasions, but so had others. Before the accident he had put the vessel ashore once at Marakopa, once at Tongaporutu, and twice at Awakino. With a heavy sea it was absolutely impossible to follow the lights. ' : Ee-exaroined by Mr. O'Regan: On these small rivers with bars, vessels were always going ashore. It was a common experience, in fact, the Pitoitoi was ashore now. His employer had never complained about this, nor hart he complained of his intemperance. To His Honor: Although he knew all along that the rick was the cause 01 the trouble, he had not made a claim on Mr. Iredale sooner, because he thought he would get better. In January, though Dr. Wylie told him that he would be totally blind, he would not give a certificate that his back was the cause of the trouble. Dr. Francis Wallace McKenzie, eye, throat and car specialist, practising in Wellington, deposed that he had examined .plaintiff on quite a dozen occasions in Wellington, and was satisfied the cause of blindness was due to atrophy of the optie nerves. Atrophyfollowed after inftamation of the optic nerves, or tumor on the brain, or external injury. Sometimes it was an early symptoms of locomotor ataxia. It had also occurred as an hereditary condition running; through families without with Drs. Ferguson, McGavin and Webistor>J.it%at physical overstrain was a •cause... Two '. well-known authorities, Mackenzie and Pick, in their books on diseases of the eye; 2 mentioned raising and carrying heavy loads or undue mental and physical exercise as causes of atrophy. In, regard to the venereal disease mentioned, witness said that in his examination of the plaintiff, he found ho symptoms of ths disease, or of 'hitf having had it. He could also find no evidence' of locomotor ataxia. Taking Captain Lidiard's evidence as substantially correct, he would say that he had sustained a small hemorrhage in the region of the optic chyasma, where the optic nerves cross the base of the brain. People of normal eyesight usually took to wearing glasses for near objects at from 42 to 45. A good deal depended on the occupation. lie would ascribe the fact of Captain Lidiard requiring glasses before the accident to the fact that his sight was getting old. To : Mr. Weston: Witness saw no evidence even to suspect that plaintiff had had the venereal disease mentioned. Doctors did not conjecture; they came to"'their conclusion rationally. They reifsoned' by a process of exclusion. They 'also''liad"to depend to a certain extent 'oil. 1 the "patient's word, and that was why he 'qualified his statement by saying "if what the man said was correct." The'first' time he saw Captain Lidiard was on December 24th, 1910. He did nbt■foia'ke'ii diagnosis then, but saw him fifteen br r twenty times, and made a ■careful' examination. If he had seen him immediately after the accident, he Could; not have made a more satisfactory diagnosis. He, of course, relied on plaintiff's statement to him that his sigltt' Was.'fairly good before the accident; 1 : In fact, he took it for granted he Svould not have been in charge of a shit/ if u hot. The Government woulo. look' after that. It was impossible to trace a'large number of cases of atrophyto a definite ascertainable cause. Witness did riqt know of these proposed proceedings.' It was an interesting case tohim/and he followed it up. ( fte-cxAihined by Mr. O'Regan: He did not attach much importance to the locality of the pain in the back. It >yas hot impossible for the rick in the backhand the hemorrhage of the optic ;rterve to result from the same exertion. The two things were not necessarily connected. To Mr. Weston: A healthy man could -get. hemorrhage if the cause was sufficient, to rupture the blood vessel with,out (hitting the skin. He could not say wlkt. certain strain it would take to cipse. hemorrhage. j ' At, this stage Mr. O'Regan asked that all vpjtnesses should be ordered out of cpurt.' .Up to the present, the evidence given by witnesses had been purely expert',, but. he expected there would be considerable evidence as to facts. All witnesses, except medical ones, were ordered put of court. I Mary Lidiard, wife of plaintiff, de- ' posed that she kept a diary. On October 13 she entered in the diary, "Syd hurt , his back." During the ten years they had been married plaintiff always enjoyed good health, and his sight was ex- . cellcnt. Witness corroborated plaintiff's evidence re treatment at home ana visits to doctor, etc. Witness also gave evidence to show that the cook on the boat dad other work besides cooking. Mr. Weston admitted that this was so, but cooking was his first consideration. i Witness also put in a diary showing the number of days witness spent at home, also the meals he had at home j during the time that he was working j on the boat. I To Mr. Weston: Witness always kepi ; a diary of her husband's movements. Her husband took Dr. Wylie's prescription for some time, but when he found what : it was for he smashed the bottle. I Geo. Cullcn, fireman on the s.s. Pitoitoi from March, 1909, until after Cap--1 tain Lidiard had left, deposed that on j October 12th. 1909, he and McGowen 1 were handing cases down from the upper I deck of the vessel to Captain Lidiard ', on the wharf at Marakopa, when there ; j wns a stoppage in the operations. He II looked over the vessel's side, and saw i 1 the captain leaning against the vessel ij with his hand to his back. His evidence -[then corroborated that of the plaintiff 1, as regarded his movements aboard the .•vessel after the accident. He also pavo '; evidence that the captain's eyesight II after the accident was worse than be-1 s'. fore. 'I To Mr. Weston: Before the accident •'occurred the captain could see the heaI cons bettor than lie could, and he had "good sight. Captain Lidiard never com- - plained of his sight before the accident, e and only used glasses occasionally when o reading.

Ts Mr. O'Regan: It did not requiio much 'xertior. to handle tie l'itoitoi's \vl«L Before the accident the captain was h\ good health, being able to chop in the bush all day. He never saw the I captain intoxicated. , Mr. O'Regan stated that it was admitted that the captain received £2u' per calendar month, and he wished to go into the box to show what it was customary, to allow for board when assess-1 ing the amount of damages to which a seafaring man was entitled. He then went into the witness box and deposed that he had had extensive experience in connection with the Workers' Compensation Act. Only a small proportion of eases ever came to court. Cases of injury to seamen frequently arose in Wellington, and in his experience the amount always agreed upon to be added to the wages, as allowance for keep, was 10s per week in case of seamen, and las for officers. He was able to say from personal knowledge that this was allowed not only by the Union S.S. Co., but by the Patea Co. and the Blackball Co. To Mr. T. S. Weston: He considered that in a small boat like the Pitoitoi the captain should be entitled to have his board charged at the same rate as a seaman, viz., 10s.

Mr. Weston was proceeding to further cross-examine the witness when His Honor suggested that he should accept Mr. O'Regan's evidence and leave the rest to argument. This closed the plaintiff's case, and the court adjourned till 10.30 this morning.