A STRANGE CASE

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 139, 14 June 1913, Page 2

A STRANGE CASE

WORKER'S POSTHUMOUS

CHILD

IS THE EMPLOYER LIABLE?

Is an employer liable under the Workers' Compensation Act to pay compensation! in respect to a posthumous " illegitimate child of a deceased worker, and is such a child a dependant"? These were the main questions involved in an unusual compensation case that came before the Compensation Court in Wellington last week (says the Times). On the bench Avere his Honor Mr Justice Sim and Messrs J. A. McCullough and W. Scott (assessors).

Tlie plaintiff was the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Timothy John Neville, deceased, and the defendants the Kahatu Quarry Company. The claim was for £§00 compensation on the ground that deceased left a dependant. i Mr J. W. Macdonald appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr A. A. S. i Menteath for the defendant company. { Prior to the opening of the .case, ; Mr Menteath raised an objection as i to the Court's jurisdiction to determine a question which was really one ! of paternity and maintenance. A special Court had been provided to deal with such cases, and from it an , order could be obtained against an estate if proceedings were taken within six months of the granting of letters of administration. His Honor said the Court considered it possessed the jurisdiction to determine whether the child in auestion was a child of the deceased. Under the Workers' Compensation Act an illegitimate child might be a dependant, and the Court had to j ,i«x___: ' _.i._j.i -x :„ 4-I,^

determine whether it was so in this case. As to whether the action j should have been commenced within six months, it could not have beeni commenced before th© child was born I (December 16th, 1912), as the child ! was not a dependant until it was j born. j Mr Macdonald, in opening for the j claimant, said that Neville had been for some years in the employ of the ; defendant company. He was work- j ing foreman of their quarry near > Northland, and it was part of his ' duty to attend to the explosives, ! which were stored in a small shed, or office near the quardy. On Saturday, June Ist, 1912, he had arranged for leave of absence from his employment for the purpose of marrying the

girl who subsequently became the mother of the child in question. He had gone to his office on tro Saturday j to clean it up before leaving, and it was at this time that the fatal exploI sion occurred. The questions to be S determined came under three heads— j Q) Did deceased meet his death by I accident? Did the accident arise in ! the ordinary course of his employi ment ? (3) Was he the father of this child? ' Evidence in claimant's behalf was ' called at length, after which the j Court intimated that it_ would take j tim© to consider its decision;

The following appeared in ©ur town edition last issue:—