SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14523, 27 November 1912, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

BANKRUPTCY BUSINESS. His Honour Mr Justice .Denniston presided over, a sitting in bankruptcy yesterday. Orders for discharge wero granted in tho cases of John Martin "(Mr Hunt), Arthur Josiah Odering (Mr Hunter;, and William Harvey (Mr E. T. Harper). An order for annulment was made re Tuomas Galletly, on the appii«»tion of Mr Hunt, who said that all tho debts had been paid. An application for discharge in the caso of Ward Robinson '(Mr Dcugail) was directed to stand over till the nest sittings.

Orders were made releasing the Official Assignee from twenty-six estates.

CIVIL SITTINGS,

The civil sittings of tho Supreme Court were, then resumed. Ol__JL\ v. McWILLIAMS.

In this case George Hamilton Olsen | claimed from John McWilliams the , sum of £_o0 compensation for injuries ; received and £14 _ s hospital expenses | incurred while in the service of the defenuant. Mr Hunt, with him Mr Vincent, appeared for th© plaintiff, and Mr Ray- ! niond lor the defendant. Plaintiff was employed as an assistoat cook by Mr Mc Williams, contractor for the Lake Coleridge tunnel. On August 13th he went down tho shait to take the men their food. When ho was ascending again his left hand was taught between the top of tho lift c-_g_ and tho poppet-head, and was -i-ushed. The allegation was that the injury «as caused by the detective nature of the maelun„ry employed in I coniitcf.on with the cage. Dr. \V. S. Robertson, house surgeon !at the Giivistehur.h Hospital, gave cviI dt-nee relating to the injuries sustained Iby the plaintiff. One linger of the left hand had to be amputated, and another fingtir Mas injured and would require massage treatment if it was to improve, but it would uever b .u quite right again Geo. H. Olsen, the plaintiff, said ho was a baker by trade, and was acting as assistant cook for Mr McWilliams at the Lake Coleridge tunnel works. On August 13th he went do-.vn the centro shaft to tell tho men that ho had brought them their food. He ascended in an empty cago with a man named I Hushton. He held on to the top of the cage, for there was nothing else to hold on to. The cage stopped within two feet of the top, and i.ushton called "Up a bit further." The cage was then hoisted with a rush, and his (witness's) nand was caught and crushed. The clearance from the top of the cago when it was raised to the poppet head wa* threo feet ten inches. He was for fourteen weeks in the hospital, and had uofc been able to work since. Jlo could not grip with hi- left li_nd, and could not carry on his trade ns a baker. Aftei tho accident Mr McWilliams saw him at tho hospital, and after hearing his account of the accident said: — "That man will never pull another cago up. If I had been there I would havo sacked him on the spot." Ho had re-cc-ired no instructions not to go down the shaft. He had previously been down the shaft four or five times, but not in the course of his employment. On August 13th when he was down, he did not remember saying to a man named Shaw that he had just como down to havo a look round, nor did he remember hearing Shaw say: "You will get into trouble if you prowl about here on your own." A man named Cameron asked him what ho was doing down tho shaft, and he told him ho had brought tho food. Dr. Diamond, called for the defendant, said tlie fourth finger injured would recover perfectly with treatment, and tho ring finger would, with tho same treatment, become a perfectly useful finger in about threo months' time, and tho plaintiff's capacity as a baker would be as good as ever. Evidence for the plaintiff was then , continued.

Thomas Haddock, miner, employed in August at the Lake Coleridge works, said that on August 13th he told Olson to let him know when the cribs came to 'tho shaft. He did so because on a previous occasion thero was a delay. Olsen saw him in tho tunnel with Mayo, and told them he. had brought tho cribs. Ho had worked in other mines. Tho cago was not safe, and S'inilar opinions were expressed by the miners at the works. Tho clearance between tho cage at tho surface and the poppet-head was not enough to allow for overwindin-. The engino was an old pile-driving machine, and' on two occasions before it ran away from other engine-drivers. There was not enough control over the engine. No man would be safe in the cage,.and he complained to the defendant about the absence of a hood.

Thomas Mayo, tunnel worker, said that the cage was not safe, and the engine was not reliable. Complaints wero made about them by the men. A new engino had been installed since tho accident.

Dr. Irving gave further medical evidence relating to the state of tho plaintiffs hand. He did not think tho plaintiff would ever be able to knead dough with tho hand.

Thomas Dynes, certificated enginedriver, said that he was driving the engine at the timo of the accident. The engine was an antiquated one, and not meant for that class of work. Tho engino was operated by a wheel valve, which could not bo worked expeditiously. Thero was a brake on the engine, but it was no good. The eld engino had been replaced by a new one.

Henry Rushton said he was wmebman at Lake Coleridge.* Ho had aot received any instructions before the accident as to who was to go up and down. After tho accident he was told not to let anyone down without permission.

This closed the case for the plaintiff. In opening for tho defence, Mr Raymond said that an employee was now in the position of a stranger so far as the doctrine of common employment was concerned, with tho limitation under the Workers' Compensation Act of 1911 that an employer's Lability should not exceed £500. It would, therefore, be necessary tor the plaintiff to prove that thero had been somn breach of duty on the part of the defendant. He submitted that the plaintiff had no right whatever in the shaft, and no duty was owed him by the defendant to provide a cage and engino suitable to travel up and down by. 1 John McWilliams, the defendant, said that if the food was not ready when the" men left it was taken to' them, usually by the cook. Ho saw Olsen at the hospital a day or two after the accident, and tho plaintiff said he wanted to go down tho shaft to see what the tunnel was like. He told Olsen that he could not get compensation, for ho should not have gone down the shaft. Olsen said he would not have gone down the shaft ff he (defendant) had been at the works at the timo. Ho told Olsen he would see the insurance people, but did not promise to get something for him. The cage in use at the shaft was a better one than was usually employed for such work. The engine was in firstclass order and was not an old one, but was not quite powerful enough for tho work required, although it was more than powerful enough to carry the load when the accident happened. The wheel valve system was as good and as effective as any other system for turning on and shutting off steam. Tho friction gear was also in good order. The Inspector of Machinery inspected tho engine and cage three days after the accident. No complaint as to tho em-ine or cage was made before the accident. Georgo Cameron, foreman at Lake I

Coleridge, said that on tho day of tho accident he saw Olsen in the tunnel and asked him what ho was.doing down thero? Olsen replied that ho" had come down to have a look. Joseph Shore, James Ryan, Ernest Davidson, and Andrew Mc__e___o also gave evidence. Counsel addressed his Honour at length. His Honour then held that the plaintiff had no right to be in the shaft, and therefore could not establish his claim that ho was lawfully ascending from the shaft in the course of his employment. Judgment was entered for the defendant, with costs on the middle scale. Tho Court then adjourned until th© following dny at 10.30 a.m.