MUIRHEAD COMPENSATION CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14685, 19 November 1909, Page 2

MUIRHEAD COMPENSATION CASE

_ .»- DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT. (FfIOJI OUE O\VK COURESPONnE.NT.) WELLINGTON, November 18. The M to Z Petitions Committee to-day reported upon ths petition of Mrs Mary Muirhead, of Diuiediu, who asked for further compensation from the Government Accident Insurance Department for an accident which occurred to her husband. The committee reported that it had no recommendation to make. Mr 0. M. Thomson expressed his disappointment with the committee's report. The- petitioner's husband, while working for the City Corporation, had lest the sight of one eyL>, and eventually had to be sent to a mental hospital. He then lost the sight of his other eye. The man had accepted £50 compensation, whereas had he diet! his widow would have been entitled to £500. Mrs Muirhead was an elderly woman, in delicate'health,, and in poor oireunistancos. She lived in a. cottage at Woodhaugh. She could not get an old-age pension as she had some property. She was not in a position to take legal proceedings. He moved that the report be referred back to the committee. Several members spoke in favour of this. It was explained that the man was totally blind and insane, and had in that condition signed away his' rights with tho Government Insurance Department. It was. urged that a friendly case should be stated for decision by the Arbitration Court. Mr Hogan said the Dmiedin City Council had acted in a most callous manner, Mr Wilford said apparently the claim had been squared for a smaller sum than, would have been paid had the whole truth' been known. The Dnnedin Corporation had its employees insured with the Government Department. That was how an appeal had been made to' Parliament, and Parliament should back up the claim from the point of equity rather than of strict law.

Mr Colvin blamed the corporation, as it was ou the advice of the corporation ganger that Muirhead had been induced to accept the £50. It was for the corporation, and not for the Government Insurance Department, to see that the proper compensation was paid.

Mr Field suggested that the Government Insurance Department and the corporation should confer with a view to a more equitable settlement of the claim.

Mr Arnold said he thought- that in such cases a. magistrate should be present when an employee was signing avray his rights.

Several other members having spoken,

Mr liaume said (he claim 'could not possibly be recognised by the Government, ll it were to recognise Mich claims the <loor would b; open for all sorts of trouble afterwards. This was the natural consequence of the State carrying on a bia?iiKSS.

Mr Craigio (the chairman of the committee) tiakl Muirhead had received in all £65 12s 6d, and he had the.advice of it solicitor. He added that if the man had been killed outright his widow would have been entitled to £400. Be did not object to a further consideration of the matter by the committee, but he did not think any furl her claim should be made on the Insurance Department. At the time when the man had lost one eye, and was not altogether helpkss, he had claimed £150, and subsequently he had accepted £50 after some small payment had been made. Mr Davey: Who advised him? Was it bis solicitor? Mr jCraigic said he believed he had a solicitor. It was agreed to refer the petition back to the committee for further consideration.