ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20280, 4 July 1931, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHURGH SITTINGS. YESTERDAY'S BUSINESS, The Arbitration Court continued its GliristcliurcH sittings yesterday, his Honour Mr Justice Frazer being r,n the Bench, with Mr W. Cecil Prime and Mr , A. L. Monteith sitting with' him as employers' and employees' representatives respectively. Compensation for Illness. Arthur Edward Whale, greaser, of Islington, claimed compensation from the New Zealand Refrigerating Com. pany, Ltd., in respect of an illness brought on by the nature of his work while in the company's employ; Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. D. Acland for defendant. The statement of claim set out thit in March, 1931, plaintiff was employed, as a greaser by tlie company v at £5 per week. In. the course of his employment plaintiff suffered an injur v within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act. Plaintiff had been ordered to stoke the fires, and to keep steam at full pressure, the work not bfting part of the usual duties of a greaser. It was claimed that as a result of the work plaintiff contracted sciatica and lumbago, or either. Plaintiff was unable to work from March 17th to April ljth. Plaintiff claimed - such amount by way of workers' compensation and medical expenses, as he raiclit be entitled to. Plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, stated that on March 7th he stoked two boilers, banked t\no fires and took the temperature of tl.-1 freest mg chambers. His clothes became verv wet, as he was not used to stoking. Fho temperature in the chambers ranged from sis degrees below zero to 10 degrees above. He was stiff the following morning and felt unwell. He continued his work for a week, but became worse On AJarch- 17th he con.suited a . Dr tfelmor© concerning; his condition, and was given treatment tor some weeks. Tt was not usual for greasers to act as stokers. Prior to this occasion he had never had an illness in his life., To Mr Acland, witness said that he had previously worked three seasons as a fireman. Ho did gardening work on his own property, but he had not ► J wnt'racwd nci&trica, from mch & voaret.

Dr. F. W. Helmore stated plauwH was Gent by him to the Christchffljgi Hospital for' massage and medif! as an adjunct to the trafH ment witness gave him. *jjg« ; Dr. R. H. Baxter stated that tfffg was no, doubt that the exposure «■ chilling* to which plaintiff hadMjg subjected had had a good deal with his condition. Vim Gordon E. Dickie, engineer toJH company, stated in answer to MrHw| ter, that as there was no one M available for the job, plaintiff hajMw do. the firing ■ that night. . an Mr Acland submitted that no m| dent had . occurred to plaintiff at work to bring the case within -•iBB scope of the Workers' Compenss^M , In giving judgment for plaintiff, jjf|f Honour said that in the onfiMgi com so of events a disease could JH| be classified as an injury, fcdthomgH disease might be contracted Miffl dent, which was sufficient to satwfrJK Statute. In regard to the pr<M| case, it appeared. that on the Mm referred to, there was an exceptjMHS amount of firing to be done, fropjMl night till 5 a.m., and not used to it. .He had spent jaffg half to three-quarters of an hoUraH the freezing chambers. The OfSM tional nature of the work that IMfi was held to be an accident. -fIM medical man would expect a maraHj such circumstances to contract «3»H| There was no reason to doubt plailwMM statement, and it was impossitjteH||| avoid coming to the conclusiqajJaM he had contracted a chill at hwjlfffl| and that the disease had of liim. The Court desired it.roK made clear, however, that not f|SH| case where a man contracted could be held to. be an accident. FHH tiff had satisfied the Court that proved his case and judgment accordingly be given for him I.Bs, plus medical and legal exp<^H judgment by Consent. ~M§|| John Shore, of Christehurch, cJffiSg compensation from Neil. Qllivsf JSSSB ning, fisherman, of Timaru, #8 •fcgjSg suit of the death of plaintiff ifogSffl John Robert Shore, who was 4TOM® while in defendant's employ- 4SM Plaintiff claimed, ou behalf WjlM|| eelf arid six infant children, dependents of John Robert deceased, that on or about NGSHShH 2nd, 1930, John Robert Shore, the employ of defendant as *aBBH man at Timaru, met his d«#Syn|| drowning. The. average earnjlffl|ffl| John Robert Shore were Plaintiff claimed by' way of tion such amounts as the allow him. , V Judgment was given by cffIWMHW plaintiff for £3O, defendant *CT| to pay this amount, same jtime denying his.