FATAL ACCIDENT AT WAITAKI

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20986, 14 October 1933, Page 3

FATAL ACCIDENT AT WAITAKI

APPEAL BY WIDOW - COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT (mess association telegbam.) WELLINGTON, October 13. The hearing of the appeal case of Minnie Solomon, widow, of Timaru, against the Crown was continued in the Court of Appeal this morning. Mr P. J. OTtegan, counsel for the appellant, explained that the party of which appellant's husband was a member was employed by the Crown at the Waitaki hydro-electric works under a document described as a "road co-operative contract," in which the members were referred to as contractors. He submitted that the fact that the men called themselves contractors was nothing more than prima facie evidence, which had to be supported by the circumstances of employment. In the case before the court there was no question of payment by lump sum, which usually characterised an independe: * contract, although it was not an essential element. He pointed out that although the men were often left to themselves and were virtually their own masters, nevertheless they were constantly working in the presence of an engineer who had a right to take them off the contract at any ..me and put them on to other work. He submitted that that was a very strong point in favour of his contention of a contract of service, as opposed to an independent contract. Mr Justice Smith said that if that were the position it seemed to go to the root of the matter. Mr W. D. Campbell, counsel for the Crown, contended that the appellant must establish the relationship of master and servant, which she alleged to 'have existed from the agreement alone, without recourse to other evidence. He submitted that an examination of the agreement disclosed that Solomon and his associates were independent contractors and not servants of the Crown. Even the evidence of an outside contract d'l nothing to weaken the Crown's contention in that respect. The Chief Justice (the Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Myers) referred to the deduction of unemployment tax on the Public Works Department payment voucher, and pointed out that that deduction was a duty only if the payment was wages. The court reserved its decision.