COURT OF ARBITRATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5728, 25 October 1905, Page 2

COURT OF ARBITRATION

WHAT IS AGRICULTURAL WORK ? A KICK LEGAL POINT. Tlio Court of Arbitration—liis Honor Mr Justice Chapman, Messrs R. Slater and S. Brown—liar! a somewhat unusual appeal case brought before'them yesterday morning. Tlio appellant was Robert Eason Bryant, of Palmerston North, labourer: and tho respondent William Rryant Vat or Pearce, of Oroua Bridge, sheep-fanner. Mr McLean appeared for the appellant and Mr Baldwin for tlio respondent. This was an appeal on a point of law against the

judgment of Mr A. I). Thomson, S.M.,

delivered at Palmerston North on Juno Pith, 190;j. The appellant (who was the claimant in the Court below) was by trade a bridge carpenter, and while in Iho employment of the respondent lie

was injured to such an extent that lie entirely lest 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 ihe appellant was then told by tlio respondent that there was some more jobs ho could do if ho chose to stay. Ho agreed, and was given work on various jobs, carpentering work, repairing a mower, making and repairing gates, and painting tho house and sheds. Ho also assisted for some time with the cooking, but was nob doing so at tho time of the accident, as there was a housekeeper on the place. He also did somo wooding and thinning, but he was not ordered or directed by tho respondent to do this work, and he was not bound to do it. The appellant swore that scrao fencing was given him to do which ho did not do on account of the accident; but tho respondent said tlio appellant must bo 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. Tho accident occurred on March oth, 1905, when tlio appellant wont to the blacksmith’s shop at Oroua Bridge to get a new. tooth made for tho respondent’s horse-rake. Tho_ blacksmith was hammering .at a bar of iron on the anvil and cutting a piece off—for the purpose of making tlio tooth, presumably—and a piece of tho metal fleer off and struck the appellant on the face with such force that he lost tho sight of Lis 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 somo occasional work of a class that would bo done by an ordinary fann labourer, there is not sufficient, in my opinion, to bring him within the protection of section 5, subsection 3, of the act of 1903, The section provides that if an agricultural worker is given other work to do and suffers injury when doing it, he still lias tho protection of tho act, but I do not think that the converse follows, viz., that if a person engaged for other work not within the protection of tho act is given some work of a kind that might bo done by an agricultural worker, lie therefore becomes an agricultural worker, and within tlio act. The principal work of the employee must, in my opinion, be agricultural _ work before ho can bo said to be within the protection of the act of 1902, and X cannot find that that was so in the claimant’s case. I am also unable to find that the work ho was engaged in at tho time of tho accident was hazardous work within the meaning of section 4, subsection 2, of tho act of 1000.”

Mr Baldwin submitted that in order to succeed on this appeal tho appellant must proceed on questions of, law, and hero tho grounds of tho appeal were merely questions of fact. The Magistrate had found that Bryant was employed as a carpenter, hub was engaged m doing odd jobs. His Honor: And ho 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 doss, and wouldn’t that' ba agricultural work? . Mr Baldwin: I submit not; but here tho Magistrate found the appellant was doing this work as a carpenter. His Honor: Supposing tliq, carpenter was put on to drive the plough, would ho then be engaged in agricultural work? Mr Baldwin: I submit my friend has to show that this men 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 bo 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-rako was an implement of agriculture, and therefore the man was engaged in agricultural employment. Tho Court decided to give a written judgment on the question raised. The Court adjourned until 10.30 on Monday morning next.