ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 79, 2 April 1914, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION. CAUSE OF DEATH DOUBTFUL. The Arbitration Court (his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer and Messrs Scott and McCullough) continued its hearing of compensation claims to-day. The Court gave judgment in the morning for the New Insurance Company in the claim brought by ]£. L. McLisyk on account of her deceased son. The Court ruled th-at the failure of the plaintiffs to commence proceedings within the prescribed timo of the alleged accident was, in the circumstances revealed by the evidence, a bar to their claim. In giving judgment to this effect the Court commented adversely on the existence ot the undesirable practice of trafficking in these compensation cases.

The action was concluded after the •Star' - went to press yesterday. In"the course of evidence, Mr Carric'k Robertson. F.R.C.S. ( England), and Dr. McCuteheon, stated that they had had the case under observation at the Auckland Hospital, and considered that MeLisky had bepn suffering from tubercular dispasp ,if the spine. They believed that this complain might be received by a slight injury.

Cross-"xaminpd. Mr Robertson said that the deceased's conditions was consistent, with purely tubercular development ** the disease, also that it might have occurred without an accident.

EvMenec was also given by the plaintiff and nor husband.

Counsel for the defence called on Dr. C. H. Teweley, who stated that when he examined MeLisky on March 24, 1913, the latter said in reply to an inquiry that he might have ricked himself, but made no definite reference to an accident. Witness expressed the belief that deceased was suffering from tuberculosis. In reply to Mr Singer, witness stated that the condition of deceased might have been due to an accidental blow. The manager of the defendant company, H. A. Marriner, said that deceased's father called on him shortly •after the death, when witness drew his attention to the fact of a discrepancy between the deceased's account of the accident and the account given to the company by his employer. A BROTHER'S DEATH.

Eleanor ilaud Egan and JuKa Egan, ol Pahiatua, brought an action against Eugene Egan, of W-oika-to, to recover £190 17/ ii and £210 7/t5, respectively, with £20 medical and funeral expenses, as for loss 'by death of Sylvester Egan, their brotheY, while he was engaged bush-felling for the defendant (another brother), ilr. Rogers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stanton for the defence.

!Mr. Ropers explained that the claim was brought by two eLsters, and was one arising out of the death of their brother. All the facts were admitted except the contention regarding the dependency of the sisters. The mother had died about four years ago. and the father six month.' later. From the date of the father's death until July, 1912, the plaintiffs lived with their brother Sylvester, and kept foonse ifor him. Then he decided that the climate did not suit the yoiingnr of his sistere, and decided to go away to make a home elsewhere. The farm, jointly owned by the brothers. Sylvester and Eugene, was sold, and Sylvester's money was invested. He left Pahiatua with the expressed intention of making a home for hie sisters, and undertook meantime to provide them with the means ot living. He made over to them the interest on the money Teceived by him from the sale of tihe farm, and also" the rent of a cottage. The interest not being due, he gave them £20 each on leaving Pahiatua. He landed in the Waikato district looking airout for a place, and while working for 'his brother Eugene, met with the accident which resulted in 'his death. In twelve months from August. 1912, the asters received each £20, £20 12/6 interest on the invested money, and £19 10/ from rent of the cottage. Under the wiH each of the sistere was to get £300 from the brother's estate.

Mr. Stanton argrued that the plaintiffs were not dependents upon the deceased brother, inasmuch ac, though they had received certain moneye from him, they ■were not dependent on 'his actual earnings. By the cessation of their brother's power to earn they had lost nothing , . After hearing lengthy lejra! argument, the Court reserved its dwision. A QUESTION OF LAW. An interesting legal argument attended the case of Daniel Campbell v. the Taupiri Coal Mines Co. Ltd. a claim for £19S for loss of an eye from injuries accidentally received. Mr M. G. McGregor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. J. Tunks for the company. The dispute, it was explained, was merely one as to the computation of the -Amount of compensation due to the plaintiff on account of the injuries whereby he had lost the sight of one eye He had l>een totally incapcitated for eight weeks, for which he was entitled to half wages. His average weekly earnings had been £4 6/10, so that the sum of £17 7/4 on this account was not disputed. Where counsel differed was that counsel for the worker claimed that he ♦as entitled to 30 per cent of half wages for six years, the maximum amount to which he 'wns entitled being £500: whereas counsel for the company claimed that the compensation should be 30 per cent of £.500. Decision was reserved.