DEATH OF HUSBAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20623, 23 July 1930, Page 17

DEATH OF HUSBAND.

COMPENSATION FOR WIDOW.

STOCKMAN KILLED BY TRAIN.

DOING DUTY TO EMPLOYER. Judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs, was delivered by Mr Justice Frazer in tho Arbitration Court yesterday, when Elizaboth Eva Elliot, widow, of Otahuhu, claimed £750 from Alfred Buckland and Sons, Limited, commission agents, for tho death of her husband, Alexander Fulton Elliot. Tho claim was made under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. Mr. Quartley and Mr. Phillips appeared for plaintiff and Mr. West represented defendant.

Plaintiff claimed tli.at her husband, wlio was in the employ of the defendant company at the time of his death, was killed by a train at a railway crossing between Penrose and Southdown on August 13, 1926, while returning on a horse provided for his use, to the.houso in which he was required to live, and was acting in the course of his employment. Plaintiff had two children dependent on her.

Hie statement of defence admitted that deceased was employed by tiio company as a stockman, but denied that his duties included living in the liouso at Otaliuhu and that he was in the course of his employment at the time he was killed. Mr. Quartley said deceased was in the company's employ as a stockman, earning £4 a week ile wont to the city arid left at abont 9.50 p.m. Evidence at the inquest showed that'death occurred at the Southdown level crossing. The horse was found near the Southdown station, with a damaged shoulder. There were marks at the crossing where the horse had jumped the cattle-stops. The coronor's verdict ut the inquest was that deceased met his death from injuries received as a result of being thrown off his horse or being struck bv a passing train.

Mr. West said that t here was not enough evidence to show that deceased had met his death in the course of his employment. If he was riding along the railway track at the timo of his death it could not he said that he was within the scope of his duty. There was no direct evidence to show how lie got on t.o the railway line, or what liis objective was at the time.

"Tnis case presents some unusual features," said His Honor, in delivering judgment. "It was the duty of deceased to go to his home and there was nothing unreasonable in his coming home at that hour, lite crucial point is, what was he doing when he came to the cattle-stops ? It is possible that he deliberately put his horse at (he stop with some mad idea of riding along the railway, but that is absurd, and is thus rejected. The finding is that deceased was killed by a train while doing his duty to his employers by making his way back to his headquarters at a reasonable time, and on the proper road."