ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 148, 26 June 1925, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

COMPENSATION CASES

CLAIMS OF WORKERS,

The; Arbitration . Court was engaged to-day in hearing . compensation claims for accidents.': -. - .'.'.'.-"" In the first case> that of Charles Edwin Sang : against Horace M.* Williamson, electrician,' Wellington, a :claim was made for " compensation „ for disability caused by a- broken wrist. The report of Dr. T.; D.M.; Stout, as medical i-e----fere*, was read. •'. It stated. that. plaintiff was at present, unfit for ' anything but light work. .Dr. Stout estimated the permanent disability at the loss of one--third of the usefulness, of the right hand. He.thought, that.radical treatment might i-effect--an improvement, but that would bo difficult and its result; uncertain. . His' Honour said ) the Court thought, in view of. the.medical evidence, that it should not attempt to settle the matter definitely at present. If a final decision was given now: it^might result'in injustice to one or other of the parties. The Court .proposed "to estimate that the boy was at present worth £1 a week, -whereas 'formerly'he was'entitled to £2 10s.\ The Court ordered payment of 58 per cent, of £2 10s from the time of the last payment 1 till-the present time,'and in ■ future the. amount, would be 58 per cent., of. the difference between.£l and £2 10s, the payments to continue -until a further order of the Court was made. ,\ LOSS OF EYESIGHT. The second case was a claim for compensation made-by - a waterside worker named'fAlbert Edwards against the New Zealand Shipping Company, Ltd. In his statement of .claim, plaintiff, who^resides at Evans Bay road, Kilbir'nfe, said that whilst working on the steamer Ruapehtt on 21st January last ho was standing in the 'tween decks during loading operations,. when one of plaintiff's fellow-workmen ' let slip.: a heavy iron shackle, which struck plaintiff on the left eye. ' The consequence was that he totally lost the sight of that eye. He claimed as compensation: (1) Weekly payments at the rate at which the previous payments were made, as from the date of last payment; (2) a lump sum for total loss of sight of left eye. . . The statement of defence, was a general denial *of plaintiff's claim. The company stated that plaintiff had been paid workers' compensation in respect to temporary disability caused as a result of the accident, asserted that the disability had now ceased, and therefore there was no further claim on the company. The evidence of Dr. Eaulke, Dr. Harty, Dr. • Cohen, and Dr. Marchant, was taken in regard to the injury to : the eye. ...'■-. His Honour said the Court was of opinion that there was nothing in th"c evidence on which to. establish a . caso. Plaintiff was non-suited.