CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 29 September 1933, Page 4

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION

FARM HAND’S EYE INJURY. APPEAL COURT ARGUMENT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Sept. 28. The Court of Appeal to-day lias been hearing argument upon the case of Boyes v. Smyth stated for its opinion by Mr. Justice Frazer, judge of the Arbitration Court. On September 24, 1932, at Auckland, Neville Albert Boyes, Titirangi, issued a writ in the Court of Arbitration against Alfred John Smyth, Waitakere, farmer, alleging that while he was clearing gorse on Smyth’s property a in'ece of gorso penetrated his left eye and as a result he lost permanent use of that eye. He claimed £174 14s Bd, being the defi r eiency in respect of payments for the period of total incapacity and the amount due for total loss of the sight of one eye as Jixed by the second schedule of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The action came on for hearing on February 23, but was adjourned for a joint medical report by the medical advisers of both parties. That report was that the left eye without a correcting lens had such defective vision as to be industrially useless, and as far as binocular vision was concerned was useless except for the purpose of self-preservation. That injury did not entail any loss of ability on the part of Boyes to perform his work as a farm hand. It was also agreed between the parties that the left eye with the aid of appropriate glasses was capable of normal vision, but only with the right eye out of action owing to the inability of the two eyes to function together.

Counsel for Smyth contended on these facts that the action was on all fours with previous decisions of the Arbitration Court in which it was held that such injury did not entitle plaintiff to succeed.

The judge of the Arbitration Court, however, was requested to state a case on the facts for the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which was done, and that case was being argued to-day. The question asked for the opinion of the court was whether Boyes suffered total loss of the sight of one eye within the meaning of the second schedule of the Workers’ Compensation Act of 1922. When the case was called this afternoon Mr. O’Leary, counsel for the defendant, raised the preliminary objection that the Court of Arbitration had no power to state the case which it had stated. The question asked of the Court of Appeal was a question of fact, and the Workers’ Compensation Act empowered the Arbitration Court to state cases for the Court of Appeal only as to questions of law and not as to nnestions of fact. The court said it would consider that point after it heard the rest of the argument.

Mr. Dunn then proceeded to address the court on the appeal and was doing so when the court adiourned.