NOMINAL COMPENSATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18754, 6 January 1923, Page 7

NOMINAL COMPENSATION

THE 02ESAR CASE. Theodore Julius Ctesar. farm hand, of Templeton, has , been awarded one penuv P(>r week damages ogainst his father, Julius Adolnh Albert Ctesar. farmer, of Templeton, by the Arbitration Court in respect of an injury suffered by him while on the defendant’s farm (says the Press). The case was heard on December 13. The Victoria Insurance Company was cited ns third party The defendant in August, 1920, purchased a farm near Gisborne. While hunting wj'.-li pigs on or near farm on December 29. the plaintiff was accidentally shot in the ’eft shoulder by one of hie companions. The plaintiff claimed that he was employed l-v his father (the defendant) as manager, that the hunting of wild pigs was part of . his farm duties, and that accordingly the accident arose out of and in the course of Hs employment. The defendant and the third party contended that the plaintiff was not a servant, but was the owner or part owner of the farm ; that the hunting of the pigs was not part of the duties of n farm hand; and that the defendant had not given him money and paid his expenses since the date of the accident. Plaintiff and defendant had stated that the plaintiff was appointed manager of the farm in September, 1920, at a wage of £3 10s per week and found, and that when farm prices fell tho wag© was reduced to £2 per week and found. Some considerable time before December 29, plaintiff had signed a proposal oil behalf of the defendant for insurance against liability under tho Workers’ Compensation Act, in which he had set himself down as an employee of his father. Fe had stated that not he, but a man named Carroll, was tho manager, but he explained it by saying in his evidence ■ that Carroll’s appointment was in an advisory capacity. The balance sheet of the farm disclosed that tho plaintiff's drawings exceeded the stipulated weekly amounts of £3 10a and £2. Ph© conclusion to he drawn from a consideration of the evidence was that tho plaintiff was placed by his father in charge of tho farm, in order to gain cxperi&ece. The court stated that it could find no justification for inferring that plaintiff had any actual proprietary interest in the farm. Pig-hunting was necessary for the safely of the sheep, and was regarded as part of the work of a sheep farm. The pig-hunting expedition on December 2D, 1921, did not seem to have been undertaken merely for sport, although the clement of 'sport was present. The court, however, felt that nothing more than a nominal award was necessary. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for compensation as from June 29, 1922, in weekly payments of Id, to continue for the remainder of the period of liability or until ended by the court. Plaintiff was allowed £l3 18s costs.