SINGULAR CASE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19462, 8 November 1928, Page 7

SINGULAR CASE.

SEQUEL TO FOUNDERING OF LAUNCH.

WIDOW'S CLAIM

" Some remarkable features distinguished certain evidence in the Arbitration Court yesterday, taken to support a case to be heard in Auckland. The proceedings were instituted in consequence of the loss at sea about December sth,

1927, of the launch Dolly, and the two men who composed her crew—Joseph Henry Maslen and Thomas Hook. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him on the Bench were Messrs G. T. Booth (employers' assessor), and A. L. Monteith (employees' assessor). The plaintiff in the first instance is Louis Daniel Cossill, of Pukehuia, as guardian ad litem for Thomas Henry Hook, Annie Ellis Attwood Hook, Lewis

Edward William Hook, Francis Andrew Hook, and Graham Gordon Hook, all children of Thomas Hook, late of Whangarei. The defendant is Charles Frederick Maslen, of Northcote road, Grey Lynn, as executor and trustee of the will of Joseph Henry Maslen, late of Whangarei, settler, deceased. Now however, another plaintiff has appeared—Mrs Sarah Ann Hook, of Christchurch, widow of the late Thomas Hook, but not the mother of the children named in the claim, who is also claiming against Maslen. Mr T. D. Harman appeared for Mrs Hook and Mr W. J. Sim for the defendant Maslen. An Employee? The statement of claim set out that Thomas Hook was employed by Joseph Henry Maslen as a fisherman to proceed to sea with him on his launch Dolly, and the two men left Auckland on or about November 22nd, 1927, in the launch Dolly. The wages of Thomas Hook, in the employ of Joseph Henry Maslen, were £5 a week. So far as was known Hook and Maslen were last seen on or about the evening of December 3nd, 1927, on the launch Dolly, near the island of Kawau. It was claimed that Hook met his death while in the employ of Maslen as a fisherman. The defence was a denial that Hook was employed by Maslen as a fisherman to go to sea in the Dolly, or that he was employed by Maslen in any capacity or for any service of any description. It was also denied that Hook was to receive or was entitled to receive £5 a week or any other sum whatever as wages or otherwise in the employment of Joseph Henry Maslen. Evidence in support of her claim was given by Mrs widow of the late Thomas Hook, who said that her hus-

band went to the war in 1915 and was wounded in Trance. He was discharged in May, 1917,. and lived in Wellington with witness until 1919, when he went to Auckland as Customs officer. Her only child was a married daughter. In November, 1921, Hook met with an accident in Auckland and witness went up to be with him. Up till then her husband had been sending her £5 a week. When in Auckland she discovered that her husband was intimate with a CoSßill. She had had some suspicion before, but had nothing definite to go on. Her bußband told her to return to Christchurch and he would follow. He gave her a letter about November, 1921, which' read as follows: "I promise to pay £6 maintenance every month, as lone as I live/to my wife, Sarah Ann Hook.-(Sgd.) T..H. Hbok." '• She was friendly with her husband right up to the end, and hoped that he would go back to her. . She was 48 years of age and was employed in Christchurch. ' To Mr Sim: During the twelve months before his death £5 was the most she received from her husband. About £lO would cover the amount sent for the previous year, but in 1925 he sent her £1 a week. As time went on his payments became more and more irregular. This concluded the evidence.