A MINING CASE

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 31, 7 February 1922, Page 8

A MINING CASE

DELAY IN GIVING NOTICE

The Arbitration Court has given reserved judgment in the case of Sillick v. Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd., a case which was argued on two occasions at Auckland on 18th November and 16th December last. Plaintiff, a coalminer employed in the Huntly mines, alleged that he was in the act of dismantling a tramway, and was holding up one end of a length of rails from the ground to which half a dozen sots of sleepers were hanging, his mate disengaging the sleepers by striking them with a heavy billet of wood. Whilst this was .proceeding he suddenly felt "something give," and dropped the set of rails he was, holding up. After having a "spell," however, he resumed work, and continued for some three weeks afterwards, but he was obliged to desist. A medical examination snowed that his heart had been seriously strained, and evidence was given at the hearing to the effect that he was more or less disabled for life. The accident was, nov reported to the defendant company, but evidence was given to the effect that plaintiff mentioned it to a deputy some eighteen days afterwards. The defendant company denied liability, on the ground that (1) plaintiff was not disabled by accident; and (2) that the notice prescribed by the Workers' Compensation Act had not been given, and that it was prejudiced in consequence. The Court took time to consider this position, and held that plaintiff had proved that he was injured by accident, but as the evidence at the hearing showed beyond doubt that the accident had occurred, some days earlier than alleged in the statement of claim, the case wag adjourned for further argument for- the purposs of determining whether or not, as more than six months had elapsed from the date of the accident till the issue of the writ, the plaintiff was out of time.

This phase of the case was argued at length in Auckland on 16th December. The evidence at the trial showed beyond doubt that, the accident happened on Monday, 31st January, 1921, but that plaintiff alleged that the accident had occurred on 4th February, and, in fact, the writ was issued on Bth August. After hearing argument, the Court reserved its decision. In the course of the judgment delivered yesterday, however, the Court holds that the plaintiff's failure to take proceedings within the prescribed time was due to a reasonable mistake, he being in Hamilton Horpital and relying upon his fellow-workers to attend to the case fox Him. Accordingly, judgment was entered in plaintiff's favour for full weekly compensation at the rate of £2<los from 19th February, 1921, to 18th inst., and thereafter for a weekly payment of £1 10s foi the re-' mainder of the period of liability, together with £15 15s costs and witnesses' expenses to be settled by'the Clerk of Awarde.

Mr. P. J. O'Regan appealed for the1 plaintiff, and Mr. H. P; Richmond for the defendant company.