FARMERS' UNION.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 236, 5 October 1937, Page 11

FARMERS' UNION.

TRADING CONCERN?

POINT IN COMPENSATION. MUCH UEGAL ARGUMENT. Whether or not the Auckland Farmers' Union is a trading concern lay at the base of a case in the Arbitration Court yesterday when Jam«ja Jude, a labourer, aged 61, sought compensation from Harry Oswald Melteop, Albert Edward Robinson and Arthur Clifford Axford Sexton, the defendants, trustees of the Auckland Farmers' Union, then an unincorporated body. The Court reserved Hβ decieion.

Mr. Justice Ol?egan presided, and with him were Messrs. W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith. Mr. Schramm appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Sexton for the defendants.

Mr. Schramm said that the defendants were trustees of a company, about to bo incorporated, but not incorporated at the time of plaintiff's arcident. They were to buy a property in Holwon Street from the Auckland Transport Board for the Farmer's Union. The body's incorporated name was the Auckland Farmers' Union Buildings and Trading Society, Ltd.

Mr. Schramm maintained that the activities of the body about to be incorporated were those of a trading concern. He submitted that the defendants were in the same position as though the body for which they were trustees had been incorporated.

Opening his case later on, Mr. Sexton said he did not know where Mr. Schramm got his authority to say that. He said also that any trading and selling done was for the benefit of members and not for profit.

Plaintiff, in the statement of claim, said that on July 8, while in the employ of the defendants, he fell from a ladder and broke his left thigh. He was totally incapacitated then, still was, and would be for at least another six months. He would also be permanently partially incapacitated. At the time of the accident he was earning £4 8/ a week.

He had received no compensation,

The defence denied all the allegations of the statement of claim, while the defendants added that the Auckland Farmers' Union was an unincorporated body, and that the union had no trade or business. Nor was plaintiff employed in or for the purpose of the employer's trade or business.

Dr. Cuthbert MeCaw said that plaintiff would not be able to do even light work for at least another four months, while Dr. Kenneth MacCormick, called by the defence, said that the time before which Jude would be able to do any work would be three months.

After both counsel had addressed the Court at some length on the legal points involved, the Court intimated that it would take time to consider ite decision.