LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1225, 6 September 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

CSMPENSATION CASES. ,\ SAILOK'S SOX. Whether nr not an infant chili! in n Govornnienl receiving home was entitled to compcnnttiori on (ho ilr.ith of its father ns n complete or n partial dependent, was Hip question 'subiiiitlrrt [o tho Arbitration Court yesterday morning. The parties to the action Vera the Publie. Trustee fas administrator of the <*- tatc of Peter Tiernan or Patrick Turna.'.i, deceased, plaintiff), ami Joseph Augnste Perano, master mariner, of Pict.on, defendant. Mr. .T. AV. ihc-rloniiM appeared for tho Public Trustee and Mr. A. W. Blair for Perano. It appeared that deceased (Tiernnn) had been a seaman on tho steamer Wuirau, in the employ of the defendant (Perano), and that, on December 13, 1003. he had been atljudgod Hie putative father of AValtcr Fraicis Tiernan. On December 20, l!) 10, Peter Tiernan had been drowned by the capsizing of n- fiat-bottomed boat, which he had used in order to recover a fender whicli had fallen overboard. Since his death the Public Trustee had supported the child (Walter Francis Tiernan) in a receiving home, and ho 'now proceeded against defendant to recover the sum of tfaOfl-compensation moneys payable in respect of the death of deceased, and snnli further, or other relief as the Court might consider tho plaintiff entitled to. Mr. Jfacdonald, after calling evidence ns to the facts, argued that, the child was a complete dependent ,and quoted authorities in support of the contention that he was entitled to compensation as such. Defendant admitted that deceased had died as tho result of an accident while m his (defendant's) employ, but denied that the child, Walter Francis Tierman, had been totally dependent on the deceased. Defendant further asserted that th'o aocident which caused tho death of Patrick Tierman had been attributable to tho tatter's misconduct in Roin.j on board tho Wairau and using a small fiat-bot-tomed boat unfit to carry him in order to recover the fender, there beinsr a suitable ship's boat available. Further, it was alleged that deceased had neglected a warning that the flat-bottomed boat was dangerous. . Mr. Blair argued that the child's mother was partially responsible for its support, and that the child was entitled to compensation ns payable to a partial defendant only. His client .would'conrent to an order for .£24 15s.—three times the amount paid by the father durin-j the last year that he contributed to the child's support. Decision was reserved. ARE THEY TOTAL DEPENDENTS? A deed of separation entered into between plaintiff and her husband complicated the case in which Flora Sherwood, widow, of Dunedin, proceeded against the. New Zealand Shipping Company to recover compensation in resDcct of tho death of her husband. Geo Thomas Sherwood, _ who was killed by an accident while in the employ of the company. Jlr. P. J. O'Ecgan appeared for the plaintiff, and Me. AV. H. D. Bell for the defendants. Plaintiff was married to deceased at Huonville, Tasmania, in March, 190i'. The two children of the marriage are both living with their mother in Dunedin. It was alleged that, at tho time of Sherwood's death, plaintiff and her children were total dependants of the deceased, who was a wharf labourer in the employment of the New Zealand Shipping Company, receiving £'2 ISs. 9d. per week, exclusive of overtime. She, therefore,, claimed the sum of i'45S fls., being tiio" amount that would have been earned by the deceased in three years, at a weekly wage of £2 ISs. 9d. It appeared that in 1906, husband and wife entered into a deed of separation, Sherwood agreeing to pay 15s. per week towards tho wife's maintenance. After making these payments for fix weeks, ho disappeared, and his wife had not heard from him since, nor did she know of his whereabouts until she heard of his death. She was. now earning 3js. per week by washing ,and charing, and she admitted in cross-examination that she could not have lived on the 15s. a week which, her husband was supposed to have paid her. For the defence, it was denied that tho plaintiff and her children were total dependents on deceased. It wns contended that 'the husband's obligation to pay did not make his willow si dependent. The obligation must first bo coupled with a reasonable probability of the payments being. made, and an intention on the part of the plaintiff to rely for sunport upon her husband's earnings. Decision was reserved.