LOSS OF REMAINING EYE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9586, 2 September 1913, Page 5

LOSS OF REMAINING EYE.

PECULIAR POINT RAISED

tPn Paw* AMnmarnTt.) AUCKLAND. Sept. 1. A ease by Albert Henry Hales (Mi Selwyn Mays) v. Segar Bros., engineer; (Mr Richmond), which w*as brought befon the Arbitration Court to-day raised an tin iKual point. Plaintiff claimed as com|>cnsa tion for the lo>s of hi* one remaining eve a sum of_ £370 14s sd. which, with the sum of £7O 17s 6d already paid, would bring th< total amount up to the full comjKjnsation payable for the loss of two eves. I: »a* explaine.l that. Hales had lost one eye 2years ago. and. euhaequcntlv, had joined the firm of Segar Bros. In October fast h< had mot with another accident, whereby hlost the sight of his one remaining eye. Mi May* pointed out that for the loss of oik eye the worker was entitled to 30 )»or cent of what would be awarded in the ca«e o! total incapacity, whereas a man losing ;h< sight of both eyes was entitled to 100 pei cent compensation. As his client was now without tho use of either eye. Ids counsel urged that he »af entitled to full compensation on two grounds: Firstly, because thf Act. in providing for only 30 p-*r cen: compensation in the cioe of jo-.* of one eye presupposed the possesion of anoth r eye a:id, secondly, on the ground tllal claimani was totally incapacitated. Mi Richmond said the Act made no provision a: all foi such a case, but laid it down clearly that for the loss of one eye a worker va-> cntitlcf to 30 per cent compensation. To support the contention that no more than 30 \>? cent should be paid, he remark I that if Mi Mays'a contention were upheld, an em ployee 10-ing first one iimi and then another would ultimately re< ivc a prea' deal more than the amount : ii*l down at being payable fo» totnl incapacity. Judgment was reserved.