FINGER CHOPPED.

Auckland Star, 2 September 1933, Page 11

FINGER CHOPPED.

INTENT ALLEGED. SUGGESTION NOT PROVED. » COMPENSATION AWARDED. An allegation that he wilfully cut off part of a finger when chopping wood was made- against Edward Ira Davis, a farm hand in the employ of William H. Smith, of Manurewa (Mr. Fleming), when he brought a claim for compensation against his employer at the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon. In giving judgment for Davis, Mr. Justice Frazer said that it was net sufficient to suggest that a man had wilfully mutilated himself to obtain compensation. Such an allegation must be proved, and the most he could say was that there were suspicious circumstances.

The mishap occurred on February 7 when plaintiff was chopping wood on a block, and he contended that the uneven nature of the block caused the wood to slip. Hβ was employed at 15/ a week and keep, and asked for such compensation as might be shown to be reasonable. I Mr. R. A. Singer said that plaintiff had been an out-patient of the hospital for three weeks, and had been incapacitated for six weeks after the accident. In evidence, Davis stated that the piece of wood would not stand of itself on the block, and he whs holding it with his left hand. The wood slipped and the top of his index finger was severed. Cross-examined by Mr. Fleming, plaintiff admitted that lie had given notice a week before the accident. He denied having had conversations with a neighbour as to the amount of compensation for various types of injury. He was leaving his employment to better himself, as he was going to get married. "Too Taken Aback." Mr. Fleming: You have been engaged for some time?— Yes, eight years. Mr. Fleming: I put it to you that you were anxious to get married and that you deliberately cut off your finger to obtain compensation. Plaintiff: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. lam too taken aback! Mr. Fleming: But you knew that you would be accused of it. Plaintiff admitted that his employer had charged him with deliberately causing the mishap, and when counsel asked him what he meant by being "taken aback," he replied "Well, I think that you as a solicitor would have more sense than to accuse me of deliberately cutting off a joint instead of the whole finger, if I wanted to get compensation." Mr. Fleming: Well, I have known men to do wonderful things for love. Case For Defendant. Defendant in evidence stated that plaintiff had said that he had to pay some money into the Court to meet a fine. .., . Reginald Macindoe, a neighbouring farmer, said that on the day of the accident, Davis brought him a saw to sharpen, and there was a conversation about accident insurance. Roy Macindoe stated that he saw the piece of wood soon after the accident, and came to the conclusion that it was not an accident. There was no necessity to hold the wood, which would stand by itself on the block. The witness admitted that there was no other reason to give him the impression that plaintiff's finger was deliberately chopped. Mr. Singer said the allegation that the accident had been deliberately caused had to be completely and absolutely proved. It had not gone beyond a colour of a suggestion. The Court held that plaintiff was entitled to recover, although the amount under the schedule would be small. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £23 17/ and £8 8/ costs.