MONEY FOR WIDOWS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 298, 26 May 1915, Page 8

MONEY FOR WIDOWS.

ECHO OF HUNTLY DISASTER. ALLOTMENT OF COMPENSATION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night.. There was a painful reminder of tl'.e disaster which caused the death of over forty miners at Huntly at the Supreme Court this morning, when more than a score of widows and bereaved relatives appeared, before Mr. Justice Cooper to hear his Honor's apportionment of compensation as agreed upon with the Tanpiri Coal Mines Limited. Mr. T. .M. Wilforil appeared for the widows and Mr. R. L. Ziman for the ornlians. In the case of the children of the Hate William Patterson the plaintiff was the Public Trustee, there being no mother living. Mr. Wilford said that the ages of the seven children ranged 'from two to sixteen years. They bad been sent to a home. His Honor made an order for the payment of €IOOO to the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate, the Public Trustee to have liberty to apply to the Court for direction as to the method of administration. .Alice .Tane .Tones deposed that by the death of her husband she had been left a widow. She had no one dependent, upon her. His Honor: The 'plaintiff is entitled to £775. What does she propose to do with the money? Mr. Wilford replied that on his advice the plaintiff had agreed to pay the amount direct to the Public Trustee. It Would go to the common fund and would bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent. The principal could lie drawn upon from time to time. His Honor commended that decision, remarking that a woman was not usually able to deal with large sums of money. His Honor made an order for the payment of £775 to the plaintiff. Janet, Burt, for the loss of two sons upon whom she was dependent,, was allowed £775: Agnes Ramson. a widow with no children of the marriage, was allowed £775: Emma Mayland and William Robert 'Mayland were jointly ajlovcd £2OO for tile loss of their son: Charles Allen, and his wife were similarly treated in respect of the loss of their son: William Thompson was allotted £2OO for himself and his wife because of the death of their son; Ellen Holer, of Clisborne, was awarded £2OO for herself for the loss of her son. (Plaintiff stated that her husband was a harbor board employee, earnin? h'-< own living.); Robert Tzatt was allowed £2OO for himself and his wife in respect of the loss of their son. W'hen he came to the allotment of compensation to widows with children, his Honor saiu that he would follow the procedure which he had adopted in other eases—namely, to allot a third of the compensation to the widow and the remaining two-thirds to the Public Trustee for division among the children. .Mr. Wilford agreed that the apportionment was fair in a case where there was more than one child. He thought, however, that where there was a family of one the child should not get so much more than the mother. His Honor pointed out that the youth of the child justified the allocat ion of a larger amount. Where there was more than one child, the 'Public Trustee would be asked to prepare a scheme of distribution. Orders for the payment of one-third of £775 ( £2SS (is Bd)i to each widow, the remaining two-thirds ( £57(1 I,'is -Id) to the Public Trustee on behalf of the children in each ease, where made as follow:--Hannah Taylor. Janet Slavin, Janet .Tackson. Janet Paterson, Elizabeth Holden, Florence Robinson. Sarah Ruston, Sarah Greener, Fanny Burton, "Bessie Kelly, Susannah Blenldnsop, Ethel Hopper anil Margaret Brocklelmnk. t Mr. Wilford informed his Honor that the amount of compensation allowed by the company approximated very closely to the claims originally made. ' He felt justified in stating that the settlements were in all respects generous.