Arbitration Court

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 31, 26 June 1914, Page 6

Arbitration Court

SITITXU AT NEW PLYMOUTH,

A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held at New Plymouth yesterday, Mr Justice Stringer presiding and' .Messrs Scott and MeCullough being a!so ffin five bench.

MR JUSTICE .STRINGER WELCOMED. Before the opening of the court Mr I", E. Wilson, president of the. Tarimaia Law Societv, addressing His Honor,, remarked: "The members of tl"e Bar resident in Taranaki desire to welcome you on the occasion of your iirst talcing Spur seat within Mis judicial district,. and of congratulating you on your Novation to the bench and to fha presidency of this court. Although Hie matters requiring the consideration of your Honor and your colleagues are here comparatively few—for naturally industrial j matters «/re governed largely by- the con.jus prevailing in Wo centres, while compensation claims tend more to amicable settlement—yet we trust that you will not lie entirely a stranger to ni, and that whether as president of this court ->r as presiding in one of the other courts ill which your HOIUH exercises jurisdiction, you will always carry away .villi you tHie most pleasant of your connection with the Bar and public of Taranaki." Mr Justice lstringer thanked the members of the bar for the welcome they had accorded him, and congratulated Taranaki on the freedom, as" it seemed to him, from industrial disputes. No doubt members of the bar endeavored, as far as possible, to keep their clients out of court, and it was most desirable tlhot they should keep the.ni out of the Arbitration JDourt. It woujd almost hi. appropriate to add a further beatitude and say: ''Ble.wed are those who do not require UlO ,<jervices of the Arbitration Court, for theirs shall bo tlie kingdom of industrial peace." He hoped (this state .of affii.'s would continue, but in case industrial troubles aroae, he toasted that in Taranaki there would he a superabundance of oil to pour on the troubled 'waters. Although the Legisature' in its wisdom had debarred the members of the bar from taking part in industrial disputes proper which came ,ro the court, still there was a legal side to the court, and he might how the pleasure of meeting, the tar in legal business. He tins ted that in tin 1 ., event I nothing would occur to mar that good relationship between the bench and the I bar which wa* so much to their mjitual j advantage.

THE KALMATA TRAGEDY.

The tragedy wlhiich occurred at Kaiinata in Auguit, 1013, was once again recalled by Uie first case dealt with, that of the claim by Ellen Smith against the New Zealand Express Company, Ltd.. for £3OO as compensation for the loss of Iher husband, the date Frank Smith. Mr R. H. QuilTiam, instructed by Mr E. C. Hughes, appeared for tih>e plaintiff, and Mr Richmond, with Mr J G. Nicholson, for the defendant

Mr QuiKiam, in opening, the case, tra verse-d briefly the details of the tragedy which occurred at Kaimata on the night of August 13. 1913. in which Smith, in the course of t'h« removal of furniture in which he was employed on behalf of the defendant company, met his death, whether by murder or by fire was, npt absolutely definite, The depositions iliad been handed into the court, and His Honor would be able to form his, opinion of the eiriumstanees from -tliie-m. His Honor remarked that from the depositions he was satisfied that Smith was murdered, whether by direct violence or by intentionally caused fire, was immaterial.

r Mr Quilliam proceeded that the claim was made under subsection 3 of section 1 of the Workers' Compensation Act, in whkih it was provided that an employer must pay compensation for injury to an employee an ,ing in the course of and incidental to his employment. SuiitKi's widow and hr child were entirely dependent on his earnings, which amounted to £2 10s per week. Notice of lift, death had been served on the company, and later a claim for f:iOO compensation which they had refus.d to pay. The present claim was for an award of £390 to be divided among the widow and C'lild, and for cost"?.

The statement of defence admitted the tacts, except as to the mamvr of Smith's doutli, which they etiid was not bv fire but by the wilful net of one V lrgm, a man not in the employ of tihe company. The defendant claimed that, li'l (loath was not an accident, nor did it arise out of Smith's employment. His Honor that it mirjit shorten the case if. lie made it clear that ft' 1 ? «»?«""» Mr Richmond might bring forward, he was satisfied that -the death 'of Smith iaros,B durin" the course of fliis emplpym'ent, but JUr yuilliam would have to prove that it arose directly out of the circumstances ol that employment. Mr Richmond agreed. ~ Mr QuffiJiam then proceeded to ar<nie the case on those lines, 'basing lih contention mainly on a broad interpretation of the words ''arising out of" and on the fact that if Smith had not been working for the coniiwinv Hie would not hare slept in the house that niglit. He •pointed out that in a 'strange house a man could rot take the .precautions which he could use in his own home. The place in question was seven miles from a fire brigade or a police station, ami he contended tlliat these circumstances constitutwl a risk arising out of Smith's employment. Ho was forced to sleep there, and there was an implied contract of service that he. would do so. The -risk was one which an employer might reasonably contemplate and "insure against. • •

Mr .Richmond then brief I,- addressed the lourt, contending tliat the death of ftmitli did not occur in any manner espocially incidental tc. the nature of Jus occupation. He was not taking anv special risk i„ sleeping at the house on the night in question, but was simplv doing what anyone else would have done. The works of a carter did not entail any risk of murder at the hands oi a homicidal maniac, as this was liable to happen to anyone. If a cashier were known to be guarding sums of money it might be held that he was specially liable to assault or murder on that account, but there were no such circumstances in this case. He quoted law in supiwrt of these contentions, and disputed the analogr of the cases quoted by .Mr. Quilliani.

His Honor remarked that he had already formed his own personal opinion as to the (pwstion of special risk, hut would look into the eases quoted during the adjournment. If his finding :were against the plaintiff, as it was somewhat likely, on the face of the case to be, lie would, if counsel desired, state a case for the Appeal Court on the points raised, as it was clear that the plaintiff was entitled to all sympathy and worthy of any compensation which the law could allow. Mr Richmond stated that tin- case was defended only as a matter of principle. After tin; hiiisheon adjournment Mr Quilliain intimated that he wnu'l not ask for an .-.ppeal and judgment was reserved.

■A BRIDGE CARPENTER'S CLAIM. | The next case was that of Everett Cave v. the Opunalte Wharf Co., Ltd.,, -a claim for i4 bi 13? id for injuries re-1 cuived whilst employed on the reconstruction and retaining wot,, at the ; wharf, or in the alternative for £2 10s . per week until £SOO is paid, nauteiy, for 3 years 10 menta and Uie »tifc from the time of the accidtiu—-ipin. 30, 1913. All - A. H. Johnstone (.ndructed by Messrs Syme and Weir) appeared for ' the plaintiff. The defendant company wias not represented. Everett Oave, of Eft-ham, bridge oar- , penter, deposed that he was employed by defendant in December, 1:>12, at £ii per week, including board ami expenses. He worked from December 24 till Feb- • ■l'ltiftry 8, when he suspended work to ' wait for material. He resumed work on February 8, 1013,#tnd worked till April! 30. On that day an accident oceur-ral at the wtharf, by which, owing to a falling plank fouling ta end of the piece of timber on which he sat, lie was thrown in the water below. Ho went to a private 'hospital in Etham and was unable to work until April 1, 1914, when he took a contract from the Egmont Box Company. Since he resumed work Iho had not earned more than from £3 to £4 per week. He was not able to do more tan superintend the work, and could not handle heavy timber, and in consequence he had to employ men. Harold A. Cooper, a medioal practitioner at Eltham, who attended plaintin after his accident detailed the injuries, stating that at the time it was doubtful whether plaintiff would live. His Honor: It is extraordinary that the defendant company are not represented.

Mr Johnstone expCained fat. he understood they had consulted, and being advised that thoy wore liable, had decided to lcare the assessment of coaipen wtion to the court.

His Honor: They must have great confidence in the court to ieave'it to assess compensation without any material. What evidence have you got that 'tiiicy are able to pay a lump sum? Mr Johnstone produced a eonv of the last balance sheet of the company, and explained that there was a probability of the wharf beiii? taken river by the .Opuna'ke Harbor Board. His Honor remarked that thife would' satisfy him, and awarded compensation amounting to £4OO with: £1 medical expenses, and £T, 5p costs., as well as witnesses and other expenses to be scttfed »;■■ the clerk of awards*. INDUSTRIAL Dlk/UTES.

The award for the bakers and pastrvcooks as drawn up by the Conciliation Council recently, was confirmed, there being only two minor objections, which were not upheld.