LOST HUSBAND'S DEATH

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 78, 2 April 1914, Page 8

LOST HUSBAND'S DEATH

I, — ■ — COMPENSATION FOR WIFE QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY. Judgment has been delivered in Wellington by Mr. Justice Stringer in the case Emily Carleton (Mr. Mackay) v. Fred Hague (Mr. Collins) heard in the Arbitration Court at Wanganui on 23rd March. Tho plaintiff sought to recover £f>CO a 6 compensation for the deatli of her husband Thomas Carl ebon (or Carlton, both spellings being used). The deceased had been lor some months employed by the defendant as a wagoner, at the weekly wage of £3 ss. On 14th January, 19U, he met with an arcident in the course' of his work, and died as the result. The defences relied on, out of several which had been raibed, were : (1) That the deceased was not the plaintiff's husband ; and (2) that the plaintift -was not dependent upon him. The plaintiff mid her husband had lived together in Canterbury till 1896, when he left for the North Island to improve his position. He waa first employed by the Railway Department for some months, the Department regularly remitting part of his wages to the iplamtiff. But after that she received no help or communication from him except once when he -wrote that he had been ill, and again, about seven years ago, when he sent a note through another person asking about his father's death but giving no address. She made enquiries about him. but took no proceedings to compel him to maintain her, and had actually juaihtaitied herself and her family with theMielp of her husband's father and of her own children. It was, the judgment stated, established at the trial that the deceased was the plaintiff's husband; and the question of her right to compensation depended on the provisions of section 4 of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1911. The^ principle was laid down by the Court in another cat,© that compensation under this section must be awarded, because the relatives concerned must be presumed to have been dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Prima facie that compensation must be assessed on tho basts of a total dependency; bub it is ope,n to the employer to prove that the dependency is not total, and to prove its extent. Counsel for the defence contended that there was' in this case no actual dependency, the deceased having contributed nothing to his wife's support for the last seventeen years. But this did not deprive her of her status as a dependent. The dependence of a wife continued through other persons who voluntarily and temporarily fulfilled the husband's obligations in his default, ac was stated by iMtd Kobson >n 1911. (New Monckton Collieries Company v. Keel,ing.) Another judgment approved by the House of Lords stated that there was. evidence of dependency if there was any fair probability that ' the legal rights would at any future time have been actually find effectively asserted by the wife. This was such a case, because the wife had not abandoned her rights, and had become incapable by reason of a seriouis operation of assisting to maintain herself. Thd Court had, therefore, to assess the "practical value" of the plaintiff's legal rights — largely a matter of guesswork. The compensation to which tho plaintiff was entitled was assessed at £150, for which judgment was given, with costs.