CIVILIANS IN CAMP.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 67, 18 March 1916, Page 6

CIVILIANS IN CAMP.

WHAT ARE THEIR RIGHTS ? COOK'S CLAIM FOR INJURY. A LEGAL PUZZLE. A rather interesting question— whether a civilian employed in a territorial camp is entitled to the benefits of the Workers' Compensation Act—was raised in a case heard yesterday afternoon and this morning by the Arbitration Court. A claim for compensation was made against the Crown by a cook named Joseph Francis Cain (Mr. Jf. Stilling), who had been employed in a territorial camp at the Domain in May of last year, and while engaged in his duties had received an injury to his left hand. On behalf of the Crown. Mr. Sehvyn Mays contended that the claimant came under the clause in the Workers' Compensation Act exempting from its provisions persons employed in the naval or military service of the Crown.

The claimant stated tliat he was employed as a civilian cook at 15/ a day. While he and a territorial assistant were lifting a boiler full of water, his left hand was caught underneath it. As a result he had to cease work and receive treatment at the hospital. His hand was so affected by the injury that he considered himself quite unable to do his ordinary work as a cook.

Dr. Neil McDougal], who produced X-ray photographs of the claimant's hand, stated that a bone of the wrist was fractured. The man would be unable to use the hand for lifting heavy weights, and'thus would be handicapped considerably in following his occupation. Evidence on similar lines was given by Drs. E. H. B. Milsom and Stanley Bull. Lieut.-Colonel A. C. Talbot, president of the military medical board that had examined the claimant, said that he was not of opinion that there was a fracture. The Board had advised Cain to make all the use he could of the hand, in order that he might recover the strength of the muscles and tendons. Drs. Kenneth Mackenzie and B. .1. Dudley, the other members of the Board, also' stated that the X-ray evidence of a fraeturo was inconclusive, and that Cain would probably recover praetioallycthe full use of his hand if he would exercise it.

With regard to the legal question. Mr. Selwyn Mays quoted as an authority a judgment of Lord .Justice Coleridge" in regard to the case of a civilian canteen steward who had been placed under arrest for misconduct, and whose release was claimed under a writ of habeas corpus. In this case, it was held that the man was in the military servicp of the t'rowu, although he had not enlisted, and that he was subject to the military regulations throughout the period of his employment. He was therefore liable to arrest and trial by court-martial.

His Honor Mr. Justice Stringer remarked, alter hearing conic further argument, that it seemed difficult to get past the decision quoted, although if it were upheld the claimant would be entitled neither to the compensation due to a soldier under the Defence Act, nor to that of a civilian under the Workers' Compensation Act. lie hoped that ia such a case the Defence Department would sec that reasonable compensation was given to the claimant. With regard to the medical testimony, his Honor said that although it was of a conflicting character, he did not think that the claimant's disability was of such a permanent character as had been stated.

The hearing was adjourned to enable claimant's counsel to consult further legal authorities.