EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIV, Issue 12322, 12 October 1900, Page 3

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY.

The case of George Hutchison v. Walter B. Scott, claim £IOO damages for injuries' alleged to have been received by plaintiff through neglect of deiendant in allowing mortar to be lifted in a bucket no: properly secured, cairna up again at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. .■_:,•' Mr K.ppenberger"iiadfioi's'iied'the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper opened for the defence. He first called the plaintiff, as he questioned his.statement that he had beem employed on the spire of the Cathedral, but Hutchison, explained that his work had been in&ide and not outside the spire. Alexander Frederick Smith, who had erected the scaffolding at the-D-I.C, where the accident occurred, was then called. He ma.de a drawing 01 the piece 01 scaffolding where the mortar bucket was received, arid den.ed that there was any projecting stay which the bucket could strike. He was quite sure that an eye-hock had been- on tie end of the rope and not an S hook, as plaintiff and his witnesses had stated. It was.usual to haul the buckets up on a rope. Cross-examined by Mr Kippenberger: The S hooks had been used at one time, but had been removed before the accident. He was quite sure of this. Ho did not remember 'Strange, speaking to him about the projecI ting stay an hour before the accident. The only way he could account for the accident was that the bucket had been hauled'up so I quick that when the hook stopped at the I top, the bucket jumped off,- although it I would have to jump about three .nches. A j man should nave been ait the top to catch i the bucket before it reached the wheel upon ! which it'he rope ran. The load of'mortar j would wcierh about 301 b. I Michael Ford said that he had been working close to Hutchison and ■ Strange. Just before the accident he had noticed .that Strange was pulling up the mortar buckets in a j«rky manner, and the particular bucket that fell had been ■• swinging;. ' Eye-hooks were on the ropes at the time cf the accident. If the: hook had struck the wheel at the top, the bucket might have come off. A load of mortar would have weighed 501 b or 601 b. If anyone said that S .hooks had ever been used for lifting bricks or mortar they were not telling the truth. Ho persisted..in .this, although it was pointed out to him that the scaffolding contractor had. admitted that S hooks were, used earlier in the work. Alfred Cook said that eye-hooks had been substituted for the S. hooks "before . the accident. He had .watched the bucket in question go up. It had been swinging, . had .struck..the stay ;and jumped .off. It had been pulled up too far. Strange should. not, have .pulled the bucket up 'unitil Tnack-. well returned to receive it. 'Herbert Pearce, a builder,- said that he had frequently known buckets to jerk off eye-hooks when they were pulled up too •fast, and the hook suddenly stopped on reaching the top. An eye-hook was the proper one to use. If a spring-hook or shackle-hook were used there would be to danger Thomas Andrews, a plasterer, said that he did not see hew an accident .could occur with an eye-hock if the workmen used proper care. He had always used eye-hooks, and had never seen spring or shackle-hooks used; " ••-..• Cross-examined" by Mr- Kippenberger: If he was satisfied-that the bucket had been' pulled up steadily and had yet come off, ho would, believe that an eye-hook had Hot been used. , ■ - George Manning, the foreman'of works at the D.1.C1, made a. drawing of the derrick, with "'the ■'"stay. against .which it'was alleged the bucket had struck. He said ho had, on the morning of the'accident, cautioned' Strange for carelessness in pulling up, the bucket. He was not sh'orthanded at. the time. . Walter Scott, the defendant, said that after the accident he had paid .Hutchison hi'; wages' for two Weeks, .and had- then •■offered"him' some light work at sweeping. Hutchison promised to go on the following Monday morning, bu'fc he did not; "arrive." Witness had 'been a contractor for twentyseven years, and had always done the kind of work under discussion in the same way. He considered that if the workmen used proper care, an accident was impossible. H. Strange,, the man who pul.ed up the mortar bucket, was.recalled by Mr Kippeubcrgei'. Ho said that the fir.it time he had been blamed for the accident was in. the Court. .■' The other men always pulled up the bucket .whether the man at the top was . in his .place or uof. He was quite clear about

the projecting stay, and had never been spoken to-by anybody'oh account of carelessness. - :-_ •-.:.. ;' •-.-- ■■•■,■■■■. - -'-"■• ■ - The Magistrate adjourned the case until 10 a.m. next day, for argument.