LOSS OF HAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 171, 22 July 1930, Page 8

LOSS OF HAND.

CAUGHT IN MINCER.

r.T.Anvr BY BUTCHER BOY.

JUDGMENT FOR £612

The point as to whether a lad not in receipt of wages was an employee and entitled to compensation for an accident which occurred during mincing operations in a butchery establishment, was at issue in the Arbitration Court this morning, when Mam-ice Austin Mason, aged 15, sought compensation for the loss of his right hand. . The action was brought by the lad's guardian, Alfred George Mason (Mr. Burt) against Henry T. Read, butcher, of Mount Eden (Mr. Sellar). On February 3 last the injured lad was engaged at mincing meat for sausages, when he overbalanced and his ■right hand became entangled in the mincing machine. Tho result was that he lost four fingers and the thumb of .the hand. In the statement of claim it was admitted that the lad was not in -receipt of wages, but, it was pointed out that the minimum wage payable to him under the Butchers' Award was £1 10/ weekly. In addition to reasonable compensation,, the plaintiff claimed medical expenses and costs. Mr. Sellar said the defendant would specifically deny that the accident arose out of the course of employment.

Mr. Burt said the defendant was in tlie habit of employing boys to do general work in his shop, and. a brother of tlie lad who was injured, would' say .that he liad carried out, mincing ope ations. On tlie day of the accident tlie lad bad been shown by the defendant how to work the mincer, and bad also been,instructed in the mystery of sausage seasoning. Subsequent to tlie accident the defendant' bad said that bis boys always assisted with tlie mincing, and lie went to pains to explain that be was insured. Giving evidence in support of the claim, the injured lad admitted that the defendant bad warned liim to use tlio plunger and not bis band to poke the meat into tlie mincer. He instructed him bow to manipulate the machine, and did not tell liim not to carry on when called away to the shop. Thomas Earle Mason, a brother of plaintiff, told of how he had carried out mincing for the defendant after he had been in the latter's employ only a few days. Mr. Sellar said there were two possible defences. One was that tlie employment was illegal under the Factories Act, but that would not bo raised because the employer might have been as largely responsible as the boy. He was anxious that the case should be decided on its merits, and, therefore, would rely on the defence that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The defendant said the boy Mason was employed to run messages and to assist generally- in the shop. On the day that the accident occurred he assisted in preparing meat for the mincer. He warned the lad not to use his bare hands with which to push the meat into the machine. When he was called to the shop during the third and final mincing operation he did' not expect the boy to touch the machine, seeing that it was his first morning at work. , , . . Mr. Justice Frazer said the boy had told a perfectly straightforward story, and the defendant did not deny it in its essentials. The latter admitted quite frankly that he showed the lad how to work tlie mincer, and that when a customer entered the shop lie did not instruct him to cease work. There was nothing . in the evidence from which the Court could assume that the boy was doing, anything that he was not supposed to be doing, or that lie was committing a breach of instructions when the accident happened. The whole thing appeared to be an unfortunate accident, which arose while the boy was doing something that hi Avas employed to do. The case had been clearly made out, and the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The indications were that the boy would have continued on in the butchering trade, and judgment would therefore be for compensation at the rate of 70 per cent of £3 3/4 a week fiom ■February 3 down to the present date, and for a further award of a similar amount from the present date for the remainder of the period of liability. In other words, judgment was for £bl<2 5/7, together with costs and witnesses expenses. The amount would be administered by the Public Trustee.