NON-SUITED
SON V. FATHER. COMPENSATION CASE. f Special to "Northern Advocate”! AUCKLAND, This Day. i In the Arbitration Court at i Auckland yesterday, James Edwin 3 Silcock claimed £462 compensation j on account of an accident he met with on December 1, 1933. Silcock had i been engaged on the farm of his fath- 1 or, James William Silcock. A plough \ which he was using fouled a stump ; and the handle struck him forcibly < on the left knee. i After hearing evidence, Mr Rich- •; mond, for the father, applied for a < non-suit, saying it appeared to be ] particularly clear that the plaintiff < was a partner of his father. No loss . of earning power had been shown. f ( The Court upheld the non-suit ] point. Plaintiff’s evidence was that i he was a partner in the farm, said Mr Justice Page, and plaintiff had ] not established that he was a worker ■ within the meaning of the Workers j Compensation Act. 1 Plaintiff was non-suited with costs j and witness’ expenses to defendant.' j
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NA19350710.2.23
Bibliographic details
Northern Advocate, 10 July 1935, Page 5
Word Count
171NON-SUITED Northern Advocate, 10 July 1935, Page 5
Using This Item
NZME is the copyright owner for the Northern Advocate. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence . This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of NZME. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in