COURT OF ARBITRATION

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1756, 1 November 1905, Page 56

COURT OF ARBITRATION

WHAT IS AGRICULTURAL WORK* The Court of Arbitration —his Horn* Mr Justice Chapman, Messrs R. Slater and S. Brown—had a somewhat unusual appeal case brought before them on th* 24th ult. Hie appellant wai Robert Eason Bryant, of Palmerston North, labourer; and the respondent William Bryant Vater Pearce, of Oroua Bridge, sheep-fanner. Mr McLean appeared for the appellant and Mr Baldwin for the respondent. This was an appeal on a point of law against the judgment of Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., delivered at Palmerston North on June 19th, 1905. The appellant (who was the claimant in the Court below) was by trade a bridge carpenter, and while in the employment of the respondent he was injured to such an extent that lie entirely lost the sight of one eye. The respondent, at the beginning of January, 1905, employed the appellant to build a hut. That work was completed, and the appellant was then told by the respondent that there was some more jots he could do if he chose to stay. He agreed, and was given work on various jobs, carpentering work, repairing a mower, making and repairing gates, and painting the house and sheds. He also assisted for some time with the cooking, but was not doing so at the time of the accident, as there was a housekeeper on the place. He also did some weeding and thinning, but he was not ordered or directed by the respondent to do this work, and he was not bound to do it. The appellant swore that some fencing was given him to do which he did not do on account of the accident; but the respondent said the appellant must be referring to certain repairs to a gate when he spoke of fencing work. The Stipendiary Magistrate was not satisfied that the appellant was directed to do, or did do, any fencing. The accident occurred on March 6th, 1905, when the appellant went to the blacksmith’s shop at Oroua Bridge to get a new tooth made for the respondent’s horse-rake. The blacksmith was hammering at a bar of iron on the anvil and cutting a piece off—for the purpose of making the tooth, presumably—and a piece of the metal flew off and struck the appellant on the face, with such force that he lost the sight of his left eye. The Magistrate, in his judgment, stated:— “It seems to me, on the facts, impossible to hold that the claimant was at any time engaged as an agricultural worker. His engagement was as a carpenter, and though possibly he may also have done some occasional work of a class that would be done by an ordinary farm labourer, there is not sufficient, in my opinion, to bring him within the protection of section 5, subsection 3, of the act of 1902. The section provides that if an agricultural worker is given other work to do and suffers injury when doing it, he still has the protection of the act, but I do not think that the converse follows, viz., that if a person engaged for other work not within the protection of the x act is given some work of a kind that might be done by an agricultural worker, he therefore becomes an agricultural worker, and within the act. The principal work of the employee must, in my opinion, be agricultural work before he can be said to be within the«protection of the act of 1902, and I cannot find that that was so in the claimant’s case. I am also unable to find that the work he was engaged in at the time of the accident was hazardous work within the meaning of section 4, subsection 2, • of the act of 1900.” Mr Baldwin submitted that in order to succeed on this appeal the appellant must proceed on questions of law, and here the grounds of the appeal were merely questions of fact. The .Magistrate had found that Bryant was employed as a carpenter, but was engaged in doing odd jobs. His Honor: And he went to the smithy to get a new tooth for a horserake, which is not a carpenter’s work. Supposing a man is engaged to put a plough in order, isn’t that the thing a ploughman does, and wouldn’t that be agricultural work? Mr Baldwin: I submit not; but here the Magistrate found the appellant was doing this work as a carpenter. His Honor :• Supposing the carpenter . was put on to drive the plough, would he then be engaged in agricultural work? Mr Baldwin: I submit my friend has to show that this man was an agricultural worker; and the Magistrate has found that he was a carpenter. Mr McLean said there was no doubt that a man driving a plough was engaged in agricultural work, but it might be more doubtful whether a man engaged in mending a gate was an agricultural worker. But this man was engaged in taking a horse-rake tooth, to be mended. A horse-rake was an implement o>f agriculture, and therefore the man was engaged in agricultural employment. The Court decided to give a written judgment on the question raised.