A PACKER'S INJURIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18703, 8 May 1924, Page 11

A PACKER'S INJURIES.

COMPENSATION CLAIM FAILS. STATUTORY PERIOD EXPIRED . y A claim for compensation ,iii respect of , injuries sustained by an Auckland packer was heard by the Arbitration Court yesterday"; , Mr. Justice Frazer '. presiding. Thomas • Parker (Mr. Dickson Bought to ' recover £300 ;as compensation from Gordon and . Gotch (Australasia),; Ltd., (Mr. i MacKay),. in .whose 1 employ ,he was at the time of the accident. . 1 The statement of claim set forth that in June, 1922, plaintiff fell off some bales, . injuring his right leg. It was. then agreed that plaintiff should work half-time for nine days, during which-period he received full wages. "Plaintiff still suffered from : the effects of ! the accident, but continued his employment, working under a disability. Plaintiff was assured by the local manager of defendant company that the company would see ho. was properly treated if his leg became worse, or did not got " better. ;. He relied upon that, and : continued working for defendants until • September 20, 1923. ' His leg was still badly injured; he was unable to obtain work, and was ] permanently partially j incapacitated. , 1 v r The defence was a denial that plaintiff met with the accident while in the employ of defendant company, but if he did he should have taken proceedings earlier. Dr. B. S. Shave gave evidence regarding : the injury to the leg. ' ~ Plaintiff stated 'that his fall was caused by a hook carrying away. He had re- . ceived compensation for three months in • respect of an injury to his left.leg, also sustained when in defendant's employ. He had not been ' able to do any work I since leaving defendants; he had tried to ' get light , work, but there were so many ex-soldiers that it was hard to do so. His wages were £5 8s a week. , The Court ; held? that the ; plaintiff had ; failed to show that failure to take action ; within the statutory period was due to mistake or, other reasonable cause. • Judgment was given for , the defendant •: 'company.'. ..