ARBITRATION COURT JUDGMENTS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 129, 1 June 1907, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT JUDGMENTS.

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. This morning the court delivered judgment in several previously-heard cases. In the ca^o of Hall v. Thonw.- Oir, a claim for compensation made by Annie, Lily, and Floience Eva Hall against respondent in respect of an accident to John Ponton Hall (who wjs injured by falling from a. scaffold in Tinakori-road while working for lespondent, and died" as a result if his injuries), judgment was given for claimants for i-200 and £20 funeral eypens23. Mr. Myers was for claimants and Mr. Blair for respondent*. Counsel for claimants did not apply for costs. A CLAIM DISMISSED Judgment was also given in the rase of Eliza Stenerson ?ind others v. The King. The, claimants were the widow and children of Christian St-en?rsou, who was drowned at tho mouth of the Kararnea river on the 18th July, 1905. Soundings were being token in a boat at the mouth of the river on behalf of tho Public Works Department. The bo"«t belonged to the scow Tiangi, and when the accident happened the boat wa's being steered by Stenerson and pulled by two of his crew. Harold Thompson, employed by the Public Works department, was tha engineer in charge of the works. The boat was being used in pursuance of an agreement between Thompson and Stenerson by which Stenerson for £2 per day was to provide a boat and crew of two men to ent-ible the soundings to be taken. He was also to take charge of the boat himself. The court held that Stenerson was a contractor ;md on that ground thn claim would be dismissed. Mr. Blair was for claimants and Mr. Myers for respondents. THE HUDDAKT PARKER CASE. Tho case brought by the Wellington Wh'irf Labourers ' Union v. the Huddart Parker Company was diiiniesed. It was alleged that respondents, by employing men at the Wimmera fiom 6 p.m. to 12.30 a.m., and 1 a.m. and 1.30 a.m. on 3id June, 1906. without a bieak for .supper, had committed ;i breach of the award. Clause 16 provided lh.it "m?n shall work during meal hours if required to do so and shall be paid overtime." Th? couit held that thcra was nothing in tha nvttird to restrict the operation of the first part of the clause and that employers were entitled, by virtue of that clause, to require men to work during the wholo period from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. without being bound to niaka any other provision for allowing th" men to have an opportunity of having supper. Respondents Ind not committed a breach of the award.