NOT EQUITY, IF LAW.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 40, 8 July 1914, Page 4

NOT EQUITY, IF LAW.

Aceordinf; to tin' law, the wile of the late Francis Smith, one o\ the victims of tin l Kiiiniiit.ii tragedy, lias m> claim for compensation for the death of ho" husband against his employers. Tips i< the decision of .Mr. .lustice Stri nti.-i 1 in the case heard at the recent Arbitration Court sittings at New I'lymnul.'i. The Court, says his Honor, is bound by a decision of the House of Lords, 1,1 which it was held by a ma jority of four

to three that "accidi lit" under tin; Workers' Compensation Act. included anv injury which was not expected or designed by the work himself, and tlier - fore extended to a case of death by murder. The Court therefore held thai deceased ,Smith met his diath by aeeiilcut within tlie meaning o' the Aft. it was (dear, said flu- Court, tnat the acc.-

dent WHS one arising "ill the course ol liis employment." and the only remain'ie; (juestinn was whether it also arose "out oi bis employment." Tin Court answered 'hi-, in the negative, and acc.ne inglv ;:ave ;u• iiiiu-111 against the widow. It is dear Unit had th" unfortunate man Smith not none to Kaimata on that fateful night on the business of his employers lie would have been alive to-day. It was impossible for him to iiave made the return trip that evening. He sim-

ply had to stay there, and was killed. Ihe Court admits it was ail accident arising' "in the course of his employment," but says it did not arise "out of his employment"—a distinction or difference which to the lay mind is not very apparent. One would think that having admitted the murder was an ae- , eident arising in the course of the man's employment, this was all there was to it except for the employers to pay the compensation. The Court's decision, to our mind, is unjust. It was never intended by the trainers of the 1 Compensation for Accidents Act that an ! employer in such circumstances as these j should he absolved from liability, un tlie contrary, it was clearly intended that the law should cover such risks. A clearer or more equitable Case for compensation than this one could hardly exist. The decision is illogical and inconsistent. General sympathy will, wo are sure, be extended to the widow over her unsuccessful suit. It is quite had enough to lose her bread-winner without being denied the pecuniary eompen<Htion which should have been hers. We do not desire to cast any reflection on the Express Company for contesting the claim. This, no doubt, they had to do in accordance with the wishes of the particular insurance company, holding the cover, for no accident insurance company will pay a big claim if there is j.ny way of escaping it. This leads us to remark that the procedure in connection with obtaining compensation is too cumbersome and expensive, and generally un satisfactory, and that the time long ags arrived when the Legislature should have made some honest effort to simplify it, giving the workers an opportunity of securing their rightful due without having to contest their claims in Court, employing lawyers and facing the inevitable publicity. In fact, the whole question of accident insurance might be re-con-sidered 'with a view to making it a Stute monopoly. If there is-anything calculated to bring this about more than another it is such unjust decisions as thut read in the Court yesterday. The judgment was law, according to precedent, but it certainly was not equity.