THE CLAIM OF A WIDOW.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1095, 6 April 1911, Page 6

THE CLAIM OF A WIDOW.

An Arbitration Court judgment of some interest to shipping companies ami seafaring men was received by the Clerk of Awards yesterday. The case was that of Catherine Lawson, plaintiff, ami Levm and Co., Ltd., defendants, and was heard at Wanganui, Mr. Maekay appearing for tho plaintiff and Mr. A. L. Herdman for the defendants. _ In his judgment, Mr. Justice Sim said, inter aha:—"Plaintiff is tho widow of Stephen Lawson, who was engaged'as second mate of tho steamer Mimitangi. The engagement took place at Wanganui on July 8. Oa the following day, at New Plymouth, Lawson : joined the steamer which was then alongside the breakwater He had his evening nifal on board, and went on *hore again. He had a drink at the Breakwater Hotel, at 6.30 p.m. with two other members of the drew, and when having the hotel stated thai; he intended going on board again. On the following morning his (lead body was found alongside the wharf, about SOvds from the place at which the steamer had been lying Plaintiff alleged that deceased had been drowned by an accident arising out of his employment, and claimed compensation. It had been contended by Mr. Herdman (tor Levin and Co., defendants) that as Lawson had not signed tho agreement specified in Section It of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, he could not be treated as having been in the employment of defendants. In the opinion of the Coui-l Lawson's employment when ho joined the steamer on the evening of July D. The Act did not make the signing of an agreement a condition precedent to tho existence of a valid contract of service. AH that it required was that such an agreement should bo signed before any seaman was carried to sea.

the next question (o bo considered was whether the plaintiff had proved that tho deceased met with his death by an accident arising out and in the course of hi* employment. The Court might be justified in fiiitlnijr that Lawson mu=f. hare fallen, by accident, from the wharf while returning to the steamer, bul I hero was nothing to justify the conclusion that the accident arose out of his employment. The present, case was not distinguishable from two cases decided recently by the Court of Appeal in England—Hsw'itt v Owners of the Ship Duchess (1010)1 I.K.b! 772, and lutchenham v. Owners s.s. Johannesburg, 10.'! L.T. 773. In the ""firstmentioned case tho master of a small ship went on shore, stayed half an hour at an hotel, and then returned to the quay, and hailed his ship to send a boat. Before the boat reached him he fell off the quayside, and was drowned. There was no evidence as to whether he had gone to the hotel on his own business, or on that-of the ship. H was held by the Court of Appeal that the County Court Judge was not justified in finding, on these facts, that the accident arose out of deceased's employment. In Kitchenham's case, a sailor,' who had been absent with leave, on rcturni'i)" to his ship, came upon the wharf, "and walked towards the ship's gangway. Before reaching the gangway he fell oil' the wharf and was drowned. It was held by tho Court of Appeal that the accident did not arise out of deceased's employment. These decisions ought to be treated as governing the present ease. The result was that the plaintilT had failed to prove that the death of the deceased was caused by an accident arising out of his employment, and judgment must be for the defendant with costs .£lO 10s., and dip. bur.-enients and witnesses' expenses to be. fixed by the Clerk of Awards,