ARBITRATION COURT.

Feilding Star, Volume I, Issue 288, 11 June 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

» ■ ■ ■ The sitting of the above was continued at Palmerston yesterday before Mr Justice Sim and Messrs S. i Brown (employers) and R. Slater ! Cunningham (Mr Haggitt) v. Cameron and Kilgour. Mr Coope appeared for Kilgour and stater that it had been agreed to pay £150 in full settlement of claim, together I with costs. He asked for an indemnification against Cameron, the contractor, under section 15 of the Act. The total amount of claim was for I £300 for permanent injuries sustained through cutting scrub on a hill. The Bench made an order to pay £150 in settlement of full claim, and costs, Kilgour to be indemnified. I Honry Goodin, Feilding, laborer, ' v. Thomas Stuart, of Awahuri, Chris- ! Tina Stuart, and Robert Phillips, ! contractors, claim for compensation ' of £200 for result of an accident j while employed cutting firewood. The acendent severed the thumb of the left hand, and so severely cut the fingers that the first finger has since had to be amputated, and the arm is shrinking. Since the accident claimant has been totally incapacitated, and his medical adviser certified I that some time will elapse before he 1 can resume work. The accident prej vents him ever resuming his usual occupation as a blacksmith, and would ! prevent him performing ordinary i farm work. j Mr Haggitt appeared for Thomas I Stuart, Mr Sandflands for Caroline •' Stuart, and Mr Graham for R. Philj lips. Mr Carty appeared for claim- ! ant. , , , H. Goodin, claimant, stated that he was engaged driving an engine for Mr Phillips and had been engaged in firewood cutting. He was receiving I £2 6s per week and his board. He : was working at Stuart's place at the ■ time of the accident. He was taki ing a piece of chip away from the : saw when the assistant knocked him j under the arm with a piece of firewood, and pushed his hand on the ' saw. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he had been up to a few weeks ago. It was not his duty to work the saw but he relieved on this occasion when the other man tired. He had worked in a sawmill at Mangaweka and ateo in a mechanical shop and had plenty of experience with saws. W. Masters said that, at the time of tho accident, he was standing about sis feet away from claimant, and saw him removing the chips. He did not see him hit in the arm from behind and did not know of anything that could have knocked claimant's i hand. In his opinion it was a pure accident, and to a certain extent was duo to claimant's carelessness. Thomas Stuart, respondent, said his wife had a farm of 23 acres and on the day in question wood cutting was being done on this place. His wife was against having the wood cut, and in the meantime his son authorised the work. He heard Phillips tell claimant to be careful of the saw. Mr Sandilands submitted that his client, Mrs Stuart, had no case to answer. The work being done was not part of her business, as the evidence had shown that she objected to the wood being cut. Mr Haggitt said he was in exactly the same position as Mr Sandilands. The wood was not a part of Mr Stuart's business as it was not cut for sale, but for domestic purposes, and therefore did not come under section 15. Mr Graham said that the points raised by previous counsel were not open to him. He would attempt to show that the accident was due to neglect. Robert Phillips, contractor, said that acting on Stuart junior's advice, he started to cut the firewood. He had frequently warned claimant to be careful, and particularly on this day, as he had a habit of leaning over the saw to take chips away. Mrs Stuart said that Goodin told her that it was a pure accident. Witness was examined at some length by Mr Carty. Judgment was reserved. R. Russell (Mr Innos) v. N.Z. Loan and Mercantile Co. (Mr Cooke) ; claim £163 for compensation for a broken leg sustained while driving cattle for the company. Robert Russell said he had a contract for the Loan Co. to take some cattle to Raetihi at a wage of 15s per day. On the way he broke his leg, and was laid up for seven weeks. On 20th May, 1906, the conipany's accountant came to the hospital and got full particulars of the accident and his earnings, and he assured him that he was insured. Later on a neighbour brought him the sum of £2, which he got from the Loan Company. Later he received a cheque for £23. He signed a receipt for the money without reading it. He went to the Loan Co's office in connection with a doctor's certificate, and was told that the company had no more to do with him. Later he was- told to call at the company s office, and was told that the receipt had been lost,*and he was asked to sign a duplicate receipt, which he refused to do. He then placed the matter in a solicitor's hand. He was again asked to call at the office, and was shown into a room where an insurance man asked him if he would go driving, and he said he would send a man with him. Witness refused. Ho then offered witness £2 more in settlement, which he would not take. The insurance agent then told him that ho would have to go to Wellington to the Arbitration Court, and he would not get very much. From May, 1906, to February, 1907, he had only been able to earn a few pounds. By Mr Cooke: When the receipt was given to him he looked at it without being able to make out the contents. He had no recollection of having signed a receipt for £20 during the same month in full settlement of claim. F Aitkfin , accountant for Loan Company, said that on November 13 he had a settlement with Russell It was decided to give him halt wages up to the end of six months. On the above date he handed claimant a cheque, for which he signed. He told him at the time that one receipt was for the Company and the other for the Insurance. By Mr lanes: Witness thought that six months' pay would be reasonable. Ho did not state the case clearly to Russell when handing over tho cheque. Although Mr Innes was acting for Russell he did not know why this cheque was handed over without Mr Innes being present. He believed Mr MoKnight had promised claimant some light work. Decision reserved. „ A. H. Kelsey (Mr Hurley) v. Trevor anil Son, claim £130 compensation through an accident to his eye. Mr Innes said that Trevor and Co., Ltd., were prepared to admit that there was a liability, but that claimant was now earning as much as he did before the accident. Mr Hurley said his client was in a precarious position ,and might not be able to continue work as a result of the accident. That being the caso, he would ask for compensation to The Court pointed out that they could not speculate as to what might happen in the future. They would allow £3 3s.