ARBITRATION COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 81, 26 September 1911, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

SESSION' AT NEW PLYMOUTH.

OLATMS I'OR COMPENSATION. The Arbitration Court 'sat at New Plymouth yesterday. His Honor Mr Justice Sim presided, and with him were the assessors, Messrs J. A. M'Cullough and W. Scott. A CLAIM SETTLED. In the case of Mansell James Jones v. th« N r e\v Plymouth Harbor Board, a claim for compensation for injuries received in an accident whilst, working on ■the dredge Pari tutu. Mr Johnstone announced that the matter had been settled out of court, and the case was accordingly struck out. Mr C. 11. Weston appeared for the plaintiff. A BUSIIFELLING ACCIDENT.

John Molony sued the Crown Lands Department for compentation for injuries received in an accident whilst bushfelling on Crown laud. Mr D. Hutehen appeared for the plaintiff, and .M>r C. H. Weston for the Crown!

l'>om the pleadings it appeared that Molony was a selector under the Lands Improvement and Native Lands Acquirement Act, 1904, or, as shortly termed, under the Improved Settlement Farms scheme. This Act provided that persons might form associations for settling upon Crown land for the purpose of clearing and improving it upon such terms as to advances,(.etc., that might be agreed upon. Regulations under the Act were gazetted on August 1(1, 1000. Molony's petition of iright set out that (1) On July 11, 11110. he was employed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the Taranaki land district to Ml the bush upon seetion 12 block 12, Mapara, at the wages of 27s (id per acre; (2) he continued this work to November 2, 1910; (3) on that dale, whilst felling a tree, it kicked and struck him on the head, causing him injury; (4) On November 4th, he gave the statutory notice to the Commissioner of Crown Lands of the accident; (5) On March 11. 11)11 the Commissioner of Crown-Lands offered compensation as in full for all injury the sum of £ll 17s lid; ((I) On April' 21st 1011 the Commissioner agreed with petitioner that the limitation of time of six months provided for by section 25 of "The Workers' Compensation Act 190S" be extended to permit o,f the Commissioner making further inquiry; (7) Since April 21st, 1(111, the petitioner had been medically examined on behalf of the Commissioner of Crown Lands; (8) On May 1(1. lull, the Commissioner informed' petitioner that he would only pay him as full compensation the £l\ 17s (ill already offered; (0) by reason of the accident the petitioner had suffered injury ami loss as follows: (a) he was totally iucapaciated from work from November 2nd. 1010, to January 0, 19] 1. a period of ten weeks; his average weekly earnings would have been £3 a week; for this he claimed one-half bis average weekly earnings, £ls; (b) from January, mh. Mill, to June 3rd, 1011, a period of 21 weeks, all he. was able to earn was £0 in lieu of £(13; he claimed one half of this, £3l ]os; he also claimed an order for payment of such sum and on such terms during his further period of p.irlial incapacity as the Court thought ruht.

The .plaintiff, in his evidence, said he started work under his agreement in September last, assisted by' his sou, to whom lie paid wages at ]f)s a day, the son "■finding himself." He claimed to have felled 2K acres, and got, grass seed for 2S aeres. but the Department paid for felling only 2(! acres. After being injured in the bush, he wa.s taken to the Tanniarunui hospital.where he remained for a week. Then he went to the llawera

lvospital«ns :iii in-patient for a week and an out-patient for nine weeks. He had no house nil the section hut hail been just alioui to build otic when the accident lia|i|iencd. ' The Commissioner wrote; com-cniMig his residence on the section and he went hack mi Ist .March, remaining there until April :2ml, when he became so bad that he hud to leave. The medical expenses paid by the Department amounted to £5 lgs'lid. Alfred Krnest Meredith, Crown Lands iranger, gave evidence that at the time of the accident the plaintiff had scrubbed and felled 2li acres. Mr Hnitchen put in considerable correspondence between the parties, and the agreement. His Honor said that apparently the point at issue was whether. Molony was a worker within the meaning of the Act quoted or a contractor. Hr lluteheii argued that he was not obliged to prove, up to the hilt that Molony was such a worker, and contended Miat there was an implied agreement to pay Molony compensation. The correspondence showed, he said, that liability for compensation was admitted by the Department, and the only question was the duration of the petitioner's incapacity. There was no suggestion that the payment of expenses, or the offer of compensation was made gratuitously. Hi.s illonor said that a mistake made :iy the Department as to its legal position in the matter of compensation did not make the man a worker Replying to His Honor, Mr Weston said that under the agreement Molony iad the right to take up an occupation icense of the section, with right of purchase. He Imd «vailed himself of that right. The. money expended by the Department in clearing the land was in■luded in the purchase money. ' Mis Honor: Then he was really clearing his mvn section, and was his own employer. The d'overnment was merely adducing the money. Mr Weston, in his argument, conten-1 led that Molony was a contractor, not i worker, and ((noted authorities in support of his contention. The statement of defence denied the illegations contained in paragraphs 1, I, 5, 8 and !) of the petition of right, mil sets out that on or about the ilth lay of July. 11110, the said John Molony contracted in writing with' His Majesty. he King to fell thirty acres of timber m section 12. Mapa.ni S.D. If the said rohn Molony suffered any personal inury by accident when carrying out such contract (Which, however, the defence lenied) the plaintiff was not entitled to my compensation from the Crown in repect thereof inter alia, he was lot a "'worker'' within the meaning of he Workers' Compensation Act, 1008. Vnd.'if the petitioner had been a worker da average earnings during his employncnt by the Crown did not exceed £2 is weekly, and he was not partially or otally incsipaciated from and after oth fanmiry, IfH 1. "On the 11th March, 10li, ' he Commissioner of Crown Lands for he land district f>! Tarannki ex gratioi ind without prejudice, paid the medical expenses incurred by the said John tlolony and offered to pay him €ll 5s n full settlement of any loss of earnings uffercd. by him from the 2nd November o the 14th January, 1911, but this offer vas refused. After consulting briefly with the a.flicssors, His Honor asked Mr Weston, if .he Crown was still willing to carry out , ts offer to pay plaintiff .til 17s 6d." ; ; Hr Weston conferred with Mr lknnister, ■ chief clerk in the lands office in New Plymouth, and'said that this offer would still hold good. The Department had no wish to be hard on the man. Hi.s Honor advised 'Mr Hutchen to accept it. ifr Hutchen was unwilling to do so, saving be was not. prepared to bind his client i;i this way. because ITis Honor: Oh don't discuss the matter .Mr Hutchen. If he doesn't like to accept it. well and good We will take time to consider the matter. Mr Weston said the Department would like. His Honor's decision on "the point of whether the plaintiff was' or was not a workor within the meaning of the Act. The matter was one of considerable importance, «,« the Court would see. to the Department. His Honor said the Court had no doubt whatever (hat the plaintiff was not ft _ worker within the meaning of the Act. There was no doubt about it. ' Mr Hutchen later stated, after consulting with bis client, that be was authori- ; eed to accept the offer of the Department. His Honor undertook, at Mr Weston's request, to give a written judgment on the question of whether or not the plain- ■ '< tiff was si worker, in order to have the decision reported in. the "Law Reports.".