GREYMOUTH TRAGEDY

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 September 1927, Page 11

GREYMOUTH TRAGEDY

WIDOW’S COMPENSATION CLAIM (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 9. Last Christmas Day, at the close of his working day, Thomas Patterson, a railway ganger, was thrown from a van. which was taking him to his home, and was killed. The accident occurred between Omoto and Greymouth, and it admittedly arose in the course of his employment. His widow, Margaret Patterson, today proceeded against His Majesty the King for compensation, and said that she was totally dependant upon him. The case came before the Arbi'

tration Court. While Patterson’s death, and the fact that he had been in the employ of the Railway Department, were admitted by the defence, it had not been admitted that she was the widow of the deceased man. A niece and son of the claimant gave evidence of the marriage certificate, and his Honor then announced that the Court was satisfied as to the marriage. The case for the Crown was that the claimant had left her husband some months before he left Petone for Nelson, whence he proceeded to the West Coast, and that she had been living in Petone with a man named Haywood. The relations between Mrs Patterson tand Haywood were nothing to do with the case, but they said that there was not total dependency. Evidence was given by Percy John Williamson that the title of the property was registered in the names of Mrs Patterson and of Harold William Haywood as tenants in common in equal shares. The consideration was £lO5O, and there was outstanding on Slate Advances a mortgage of £358 16/4. Evidence was given for the defence by a railway ganger that Patterson had told him that his wife had gone away with another man, and Patterson had asked witness to come to live with him. Not only had Patterson’s wife gone, but she had taken the furniture. Mrs Patterson, in the box, said she had left her husband because of his drunken habits and ill-treatment of her. She received £1 per week and keep from Haywood for acting as his housekeeper and h.er husband had sent her £2 each fortnight. The money invested in the house was money which she had saved. Haywood corroborated this. The question came down to one of dependency, said his Honor. Mrs Patterson appeared to have been quite justified in leaving her husband, but she was not totally dependent on him. She might have Taken him back had he stopped drinking, but unfortunately she had not. One could only assume that Patterson’s payments for his son were actually for the wife, and she was entitled to compensation. Patterson was a man of 60 years, and his working life would probably not have been more than live years. They allowed this period, or £250. The Court was also satisfied as to the bona fide relationship between Mrs Patterson and Haywood. Their relationship was beyond question.