THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 June 1921, Page 5

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

TARANAKI CASES. RESERVED JUDGMENTS. Mr. Justice Frazer has given his reserved judgment in the following claims for compensation heard at New Plymouth on June 13. MULLIONS v. ELTHAM COUNTY COUNCIL. In the case Maud Mary Mullions, of Eltham, v. the Eltham County Council, His Honor gave judgment for the defendant corporation. He said: “The plaintiff claims to recover from the defendant compensation for the death of her husband, Joseph Mull lone, who died on January 8, 1921, from injuries received through being run over by a dray on January 5, 1921. The facts are that the deceased was a road foreman employed by the Eltham County Council, and by a loose arrangement between the council and the roadmen the working day consisted of seven and a quarter to seven and a half hours, payment being made on the basis of 8 hours. The intention was that the men would be paid for travelling time one way. One morning deceased was going to work in a dray, together with his brother-in-law, and whilst trying to control his horse was run over by the dray, from the injuries from which he died. The Court is of opinion that it was not part of deceased’s duties to drive his brother-in-law to work, and that the arrangement was made mutually between the men. The deceased was, using the road as an ordinary member of the public, and not in pursuance of any contract with the County Council. Judgment will be entered for the defendant corporation, and leave reserved to apply for costs.” CULLEN v. O’NEILL. The following is a summary of His Honor’s judgment in the case of John Joseph Cullen v. William Alexander O’Neill: “This is a claim for compensation for an injury by accident received by the plaintiff while splitting firewood on defendant’s land. The only point in issue is whether the plaintiff was a servant of the defendant or was an independent contractor. He is entitled in the former case to recover compensation, but not in the latter. The plaintiff states that he was employed on woodsplitting piecework at 15s per cord. Defendant’s version is that plaintiff contracted with him from time to time to ) undertake the splitting of specified quantities from 20 to 200 cords at 15s per cord. Each tell a reasonable story, and we can only conclude that the memory of one is defective on certain points. We are unable to decide which version to accept. The onus is on the plaintiff to establish his case, and as he has not discharged that onus judgment must be entered for the defendant. Leave is reserved to the defendant to apply for costs.” 1 7