COMPENSATION CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20365, 20 September 1929, Page 16

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

LOSS OF A FOREFINGER.

MISHAP WITH CIRCULAR SAW

PLAINTIFF NOT SUCCESSFUL.

[by telegraph.—own correspondent, HAMILTON, Thureday.

A claim for £222 9s 6d as compensation for tho loss of the right forofingor, was brought in tho Arbitration Court, at Hamilton, to-day by Thomas James Gibson, coal and firewood merchant, Hamilton East (Mr. Gray), against William Alexander Barbor and Charles William Shepherd, trading under tho namo of Crawford and Compiany, wood and coal merchants, Claudclamds. Mr. Justice Blair presided. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, sot out that in February, 1929, hd was engaged by defendants to cut into short longths the defendants' stock of firewood on defendants' premises. They agreed to pay him wages at the rate of 25s a day. The terms of employment provided that he should supply his own circular saw, for the use of which they' agreed to pay him 12s 6d a day.

Plaintiff commenced work on February 6, and at 10.30 a.m. on that day ho was accidentally injured through his hand coming into contact with tho circular saw. His right hand was badly lacerated and the forefinger had to be amputated. He had been unable to work since the date of the accident. Defendants contended that tho agreement with plaintiff provided that ho should cut b specific quantity of firowood and that he should employ a benchman and an assistant, at the rate of £2 13s 6d a day. Plaintiff acted as his own benchman, and was injured. All other points raised in the statement of claim were denied. Counsel said the point at issue was whether plaintiff and his assistant were engaged on wagos or whether a contract was entered into between plaintiff and defendants.

After hearing plaintiff's evidence the Court adjourned to considor tho issue raised by counsel. On resumption His Honor announced that the Court was of opinion that plaintiff had not discharged the onus imposed on him to provo that ho was a worker. The evidence showed that he had engaged an assistant and had entered into a contract with defendants to cut a specific quantity of wood at a quoted price per day. Plaintiff's claim was therefore dismissod.