ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 16237, 5 October 1916, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT

Third Day—Thursday. COMPENSATION CLAIMS. The Arbitration Court sat to-day to hear two compensation cases. —Smith v. Hudson.— Christina Smith v. W. U, Hudson—a widow's claim for compensation for the. death of her husband by accident when in the employ of the defendant. Mr Siurr appeared for claimant, and air Adams for defendant. i; was announced that a settlement had been arrived at, claimant accepting £125 in full satisfaction.—Judgment was given for ibis sum. —M'Carthy v. U.S.S. Co.Ilenry M’Carlhy v. Union Steam Ship Company.—Plaintiff (a fireman! claimed payment at the rats of £1 10s per week from January 28 to the date of trial (or such lump sum as the Court might order) for injuries sustained while employed by the company. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for plaintiff, and Mr C. G. White for defendants. Mr Irwin said that plaintiff was a. fireman in the employ of the defeudanls for 38 years. Ou the date of the accident, January 28, he was cleaning up refuse in the hold of the Whangapo at Port Chalmers. Some grit got into "his eye in the course of his work. He treated it lightly, because the thing had happened to him before, and he continued to work until late in the evening. Next day lie found Ills eve sore ■Hid inflamed. He saw a doctor January 29, and on January 31 Dr Fitzgerald gave him an order for admission to the Hospital. There he was attended by a specialist (Dr M'iiride), and he lost the sight of the eye in April. When he came out of hospital ho went to Port Chalmers to collect two daj'S pay, and ho then uiiorined the manager there what had happened. He was told 'hat he should hare given notice within 24 hours. Subsequently he was sent to the manager of the accident insurance department of the _ Standard Insurance Company, who asked him how much he wanted.' lie said £l5O, and the manager (Mr Pairbaivn) told him to come back. Later the manager toid him that the general manager had instructed that nothing was to bo paid, no proper notice having been given. This really was tho dotcnce filed—namely, that the injury was not caused by accident arising out of and in the course of plaintiff’s employment; and that if it were pKA cd that ho did sustain tho injury bv accident at the time and in the manner aheged. notice in writing of the accident bad not been given to defendants as soon P/acticable, in accordance with section ot toe workers’ Compensation Act, ICO3 by which delay defendants bed been prejudiced in the defence of the action. (Left sitting.)