ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12391, 28 June 1902, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

(Before ll'a Honor Mr Jiutice Cooper am Messrs 11. Slater and S. Brown.) Tlie court sat yesterday morning to hoar ai arbitration to settle o.nMtions r.a to who ar dependents of the lute Archibald M'Lcan, c Alexandra South, dredgemaater, and as to tin apportionment and application of the ascer taintd amount of compensation under the ac in respect of the injury which resulted in tbj death of the said Archibald il'J>an. Mr J. V. Voodhonsc appeared for the Publi Ti'listce, as' legal personal representative o Aichibald M'Le.in (deceased), acting on behal oi Ethel Emily Christina H'lican, the claimant Mr F. 1!. Chapman: 1 represent the two in fant respondents. His Honor; Two illegitimate children? Mr Chapman: Yea. When I speak o£ an paring to represent these two children, I an instructed to represent them, but there doc: not seem to be any machinery under the. Ac for representation. The court have to take thi wholo responsibility. Ilia Honor: We have to take '.ho respon sibility, but. of course, we will hear you or tlicir behalf. Mr Chapman said that the history of tin matter was that the first illegitimate child was the child oi the woman whom the deceased afterwards married, and consequently was th , half-brother or sister of the claimant. The man married the mother of the first illcgitiinatf child. Then she died, and learned counsel was informed that k< was to many the mothei of the second illegitimate child in a fortnight Ho however, was drowned, and that child v/s? born two month? and a-lwlf after his death. !!is Honor , There lire three children I'.llogellier. Jlr Chapman: Yes. Two by one mother, whom ho married, the first of which is illegitimate and the second legitimate. Continuity learned counsel said that the man had been adjudged tlio father of the two illegitimate children. Then came the question of vrhat pewer the court had under the act. The act, in the ca?s of death, conferred benefits upon the dependents, and described dependents in detail. There were no less thau 1G descriptions, including step-father and step-mother, There was no doubt as to the general rale, i'hat had been decided explicitly in several cases thai ordinarily such word as "child" incsjis legitimate child; but it was for the court to consider whether it had not power in this instance to give it a meaning extending to natural cliilrdcu. There was a further question of whether it was ever intended that this court, in the exercise of their discretion, should bo bound by strict rules of law. The Public Trustee, Mr Chapman said, was asked in this use.to suspend these proceedings, as the Minister of Justice had been asked to introduce legislation to make the position clearer under the net, but apparently the Public Trustee, had not seen his way to delay proceedings in view of contemplated legislation. The Minister did not give any undertaking that he would introduce legislation, hut said that he would favourably consider it. He (learned counsel) snbmiUed that it was intended to give the court full discretion to deal with and extend the benefit to all dependents who might receive rights under the act. He contended a-lso that this court were not tied down to the ordinary interpretation of the word •■child" or "son. ,. They were entitled to exercise some discretion and extend the interpretation to natural children. It was not a, case in which ho could Quote authority, because authority on leg il rights was the "other way Mr WoodhonsD submitted that the court would interpret the statute as all other statutes in their ordinary meaning, and be bound by any decisions which would be binding on the Supremo Court with regard to them. It was quite clear that the words child, son, or daughtev \iriina facie under act of Parliament always meant legitimate children. To introduce illegitimate into the act would interfere with the rights of lcßitimatc- children. His Honor mid that the court would reserve judgment on the point. It was a rather interesting question. He had partly considered it on a previous occasion. The court then adjourned till 9.30 a.m. on Monday,