SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3093, 25 May 1917, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

WATERSIDER'S DEATH

WIDOW'S CLAIM AGAINST U.S.S. CO. £1250 DAMAGES AWARDED In tho Supreino Court yesterday, l>cforo His Honour Mr. Justice lioskius and a jury of twelve, Amelia. Haywood claimed ironi the Union' Sceuni Slim Coinjmny of Sew Zualiiuil, LUI., tho oimi of £2WM (liuiiiiuvij. Jlr.-.1.'. J. O'Huuaii appeared fw pliiintiir and Uessvg. T. 11. Willord and I'.

Levi lor tho defendant company. Tho statement of claim set forth tlmt plaintiff was tlio widow of Albert Lawrence Haywood, waterside woricer, that Bho sued as a person entitled to maintain an action by virtue of tho provisions of tho Deaths by Accident Compensation Act, 191)8. Deceased, on tho day on which ho met his death, -was in tho employ of the company as a cra'no drivel" on tho steamship Manuka, then bcincr unloaded in tho port of Wellington. The hatches were being placed ovor No. 2 hold whon tho deceased, in the. course of his dut.v. stopped on ono of the hatohos. The hatch collapsed and

precipitated tho deceased to the bottom of tho ship, killinsr him. Plaintiff alleged that-defendants failed -to observe ;i proper system in tlio removing and replacing; of tho hatches; that the iron flange, upon which tlio ends of tho hatches rested, was too narrow, and unfitted to support tho hatches; thut tho particular hatch that collapsed, having become slightly shortened by reason of shrinkage or wear and tear, or both, was incapable of sustaining any weight; that if it should bo shown that the hatch in question collapsed becauso of omission to placo in position tho "sister beam," or becauso tho hatch was placed in tho wrong position, theso nets of omission or failure wero duo to tho fact that the company hud ho officer or 60rvant controllinir tho work of replacing or removing , tlio hatches. Plaintiff claimed .£2OOO damaares. ' Defendants admitted that the accident occurred substantially as described' in tho statement of claim, and that it was the duty of iho company to toko all roasonablo caro that the steamship and its appliances wore in such a condition of efficiency that tho persons omployed therein could work with reasonn'ble safety. The company further said that (irrespective of the negligonco of its servants after referred to) it did, by its Board of Directors, tako all such rcasonablo care. Defondanta denied that they failed to observe a proper and workmanlike system in tho removing and replacing of tho hatches, and asserted that if there was any negligence in tho matter it was the negligence of fellow servants of tho deceased. Tho company further denied negligonco in respect of tho iron ilango or ledgo referred to in tho stateraent of oUiiin, and said that the cause of the accident was tho negligence of a follownsorvant or servants of tho deceased, for which tho company with certain limitations aftermentioned was reeponsiblo. The company admitted that the hatch which collapsed , Rβ alleged when placed in tho position in which it then was, was too short, and that, boing bo placed, end without tho sister or wing fore-and-after which had been omitted to bo put in, it was incapable of sup(porting tho weight , of the deceased, and that the deceased stood thereon, and was killed as alleged. Defendants contended, however, ' that tho eaid hatch was placed in tho wrong position; that if it had been placed in the right position it was of sufficient lonsth, and the accident would not have happened; that had the Bister or wing, fore-end-nf tors been put on, as they should have been, the hatch woujd not havo givon way, but nt the most would have tipped Hip'; that the placing of the hatch in tho wrong position and tho omitting to place the eister beam on wero tho improper acts of wharf labourers, fellow-servants of tho deceased. Defendants asserted that there was a duly appointed officer of tho ehip to attend to the removing and replnciriK of the hatches, and that if ho failed to carry out his duties the default or negligence was his. Tho company admitted liability for .£SOO, and paid that amount into Court. It claimed that the damago payoblo was limited to that sum. A number of issues in matter of fact were pu-t to the jury, while certain points of law were reserved for decision by tho Bench. The jury answered the question in favour of the plaintiff, ard returned a verdict for damages. Judgment has not yet been entered, pending consideration of law points raised.

TIMARU SUPREME COURT By Telegraph.—Press Association. Timaru, May SI. At the Supreme Court, an c—taxi owner, J. F. Pelvin, was fined £25 on conviction on a charge of perjury in. denying the ownership of a car in order to avoid a claim for damages. A discharged soldier was sentenced to three years' reformative treatment for committing a criminal assault on a boy. A Maori, -who was charged with criminal assault on a Native girl at Aro: Tvhenua, was acquitted