COMPENSATION CASES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13702, 19 March 1908, Page 6

COMPENSATION CASES.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION-.]

Wellington', Wednesday. At the Arbitration Court to-day two compensation cases were dealt with. The widow of the bite William C. Whiteford proceeded against the Crown for £400 as compensation for an accident, which was alleged to have caused her husband's death while working for the Post and Telegraph Department. The case was somewhat peculiar. In September last Whiteford way employed on the top rung of a ladder boring a hole in a post, to cany telephone wires. He was about 23ft from the ground, and had a rope round his body. Suddenly he collapsed, and leaned Back on the rope, and when lowered to the ground he was found to be dead. It Mas shown that deceased had heart affection, and died from regurgitation. The contention was that as ho had to work with his body thrown backwards from the pole death had been due to, or accelerated by, the strain of the position. Counsei for the Crown submitted that, the accident had not arisen out of de- - ceased'? employment, also that the injury suffered was not one which might have been avoided. It was one that might have happened to him at any moment. He contended that unless there was physical injury the Act did not apply here. The man died from natural causes. The Court reserved its decision. William Kelly proceeded against the Union Steam Ship Company for £300 compensation foi the loss of an eye while in their employ. The man, a 'blacksmith, was working at tie company's repairing yard, and win!,- dressing a bolt head was struck in the left eye liv a small piece of nun. chipped oil the tool he was using. The pupil of the eye was so badly hurt that the sight was destroyed, and the eve hud to be removed. He claimed that as a result the right eye ..was also affected, his sight being so much impaired as to prevent him from following his trade. Respondents claimed that the right eve had not been affected, and the loss of the left eve would not atlect the mans earning powers, and that they Were not liable to pay compensation. The Court, held that claimant was not able to return to his previous employment, and an order was made for the payment of £1 7s 2d weekly during his period of incapacity. If the company offered em- •, ployment, and the claimant accented it, payments should be stopped.