ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18374, 14 April 1923, Page 13

ARBITRATION COURT.

——. ♦— „ ■ . - •■• - ;>;■ THE MISSING MANUREWA. AWARD TO OFFICER'S MOTHER -" • •.&-.'•:, ■■ ■■.:('- •.'.• , '''"';V-;:f'''..' '.'' :.':'['■'- ■.';;"''',,'/;.'■■..';}••.«! '' Judgment 'was given yesterday by the'' ■ , Arbitration- Court in a claim for £720, as '.'.'/ compensation, brought by Jane '' Elizabeth V 'V '} Peek, widow, of Auckland, against Messrs. J, A. S. Paterson, Ltd., 'and Kate Ruby " Muriel Holmes, owners 'l- of . the barque > "■; ■ : Manurewa,, in * respect: of h the loss of * her. son,- Leslie Goydei Peek, who was second v .. officer* of the vessel when she was < lost. •; Yv The Court : awarded plaintiff £286, and v vi»j ;allowed her £9;9s costs, with 'i witness' ex- .'$ penses % and disbursements, to be settled -h.i% by the clerk of awards. ■ : ;- 'h" :-..•';• « ■'{ v ; CLAIM BY A ' SEAMAN. ' " a : • : A claim for compensation in respect .of i, injuries received by : a "seaman' serving .'on .7 •»; bpard a vessel was heard. The plaintiff, Rolph Brecko (Mi. Holmden),, sustained a , .-.,■ I broken leg while. serving on - the .- steamer;. '% | Aupouri, and he claimed damages against % the Northern Steamship Company (Mr.j ;- ;V Richmond), the owners of the vessel. ; , Mr. -Holmden said the facts were:not <* in dispute, and : the amount >at 1 issue was;'; • 5 very small, but ,"big principles were at l r stake.'*' ! . Plaintiff was f serving; ;'aa> an '.;' able; - • seaman 'on boatd the Aupouri in January, 1922, at wages of £15 16s 8d - per month, r plus meals and' accommodation. The de-; 7* fendants had paid yto plaintiff £77 lis 2d, • '•* and that amount, counsel submitted, was ''-j";'*: paid under, the defendant's liability under , the Shipping and Seamen's Act, and was ':* not paid under their liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. -That amount .'.-' of £77 lis 2d was three months' wages from ■■ date of '■ accident,' and hospital expenses. '*S'/ : % Plaintiff was claiming for ;compensationy" 'J under the Workers' Compensation Act/: He-V .?t would contend that; if plaintiff's incapacity' '.'„ extended beyond three months, ; then he , ;, was entitled to .; his > full; wages ; for £ three'.: : months, and for any; period !■; of incapacity over three months he r was' entitled to 55\ i'< • per cent, of his wages, plus food, accommoda.tion, and overtime. , Mr. Richmond contended that in asses*., sing ; compensation ; under the : Workers' '- Compensation Act, the worker was only \ entitled: to: the 55 per cent, for the 1 three ;U;V,months, and not to the /full wages V as;';•■•« claimed by plaintiff.V; >."-./.:''.V•'- "■[;'■ f The Court awarded £1 a : ,week, for board ;;'- : and lodging. >; It reserved its decision as to : .. the point in regard to the liability of the '.shipowner '.:. to pay; full, wages for three.