COMPENSATION CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17444, 14 April 1920, Page 8

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

«. "SYMPATHETIC TREATMENT." PLEA FOR INJURED-WORKER. The question of securing official support for the "sympathetic treatment" of an unsuccessful claimant -was raised in the Arbitration Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Stringer presiding, during the hearing of ■» compensation claim for £175 brought by George Lindsay (Mr. T. V. Byrne), labourer, Patetonga, against the King (Hon. J. A. Tole). Mr. Byrne, dealing -with a plea in the defence that the action was raised too late, suggested that if that objection were sustained the Court might nevertheless hear all the evidence so that, if possible, a finding could be given which would support .in appeal to the Government for sympathetic treatment toward the claimant, who had sustained the loss of his left thumb >n the course of his employment.

His Honor, in ruling that evidence ■would first be taken only in regard to the cause of delay in the matter, said it was still open to Lindsay to rpply for sympathetic treatment. But he pointed out that the Arbitration Court did not sit for the purpose of trying cases so as to ettabliih a basis for sympathetic claims against the Government. In seeking to justify the delay of 13 months which had occurred, between thee date of the accident and the raising of the action. Mr. Byrne explained that on November 26, 1918, while working upon Government drainage construction at Patetonga, the claimant wag bruised on the left thumb by a piece of wood striking him while he was using a shovel. The thumb was subsequently amputated, Lind say leaving Thames Hospital at the end (if January. His wife had communicated the fact of the accident to his employers, and on making enquiries later claimant gained the impression that he wou4d get his compensation in one sum of £42 when the doctor certified him fit for work. Having obtained the certificate, he. enquired as to compensation, and was told by the chief engineer on the works that the report on the matter had gone through his office all right. Claimant thought it was only a matter of time, but later began seriously to question whether he would get Ins compensation, and on August 20,1919, after the statutory period of six montns had elapsed, he applied for it by letter. Five days_ later the chief engineer replied that he did not think the claim would be recognised. Claimant consulted his solicitor in October, and the action was begun in February. 1920. Mr. Byrne submitted that the conduct of the officials led his client to believe he would get his compensation. After evidence was given, Mr. Justice Stringer said that while the Court v-an reluctant to dismiss an action on technical grounds, in the present case, if it were held that there were reasonable grounds for delay, they would be reducing the statutory provision of the Act to a dead letter. The claimant's evidence, even if it had not been contradicted, was insufficient to justify the conclusion that he had been lulled into a position of false security*. The action, therefore, must be dismissed. Mr. Tole applied for costs, but His Honor, whi'e stating that the Crown was certainly entitled to them, said that n the circumstances they would not be allowed.