CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 77, 30 March 1920, Page 7

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

AN INJURED BACK. j JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. : A claim for compensation wao made at the Arbitration Court this morning, i before his Honor Mr. Justice Stringer, l.y i a labourer named John Murphy from \V. R. Ingram, dentist, .Symonds Street, in j respect of injuries alleged t.. have been 1 I received while in the latter'b employ. Mr. I lA. K. Skelton appeared for plaintilT anil j jMr. McLiver for defendant. j I Tho case, as outlined hy Mr. Skelton, | was to the effect that plain! iff was em- ; ployed by defendant in Octobi-r, IIUSI, to ! fell" trees, cut up the trunk*, cud clear ■ scrub on a section in Cemetery I Sully, off Symonds Street, for which he wa« receiving 11/ per day, his nvera.gr weekly ua«c being £3 per week. While lifting a length of one of the tree trunks he strained his . back. a.nd was unable t" go havk to work I the following day. He went to a chemist | and got sonic medicine and n lotion, and also informed Mr. Ingram that he was unable to work. Defendant paid his wages up to date and a-sked him tn report ngain. Subsequently plaintiff went to the Hospital, where he was medically examined and was given a certificate, whicli he took to defendant's office and handed to the lady attendant. The latter took it, and a few minutes after returned it. saying that Mr. Ingram knew nothing about it. Plaintiff was flfl years of age. and had not been able to do any heavy work since the injury, which took place on October 31, and claimed half wages, amounting to f 1 10/ per week, from that date to the present time, and £1 medical expenses. Evidence of a somewhat rambling nature was given by plaintiff. Evidence was also given by a witness to the effect that he assisted plaintiff to lift all the logs on the section, and that | the latter had been drinking during his work. This closed the case for the plaintiff. The defence consisted of a general denial of the statements in the claim. His Honor intimated that the Court did not propose to call on the defence, a= they were not satisfied that plaintiff had made out a prima facie case. Judgment would be for the defendant.