ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21021, 9 May 1930, Page 15

ARBITRATION COURT.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £IOOO. The Arbitration Court, with Sir Justice Frazer (president) and Messrs W. Cecil Prime and A, L. Monteith on the Bench, was engaged yesterday hearing the case in which Ella Muriel Stokes, on behalf of herself and children, dependents of the late Percy Thomas Stokes, boot salesman, sued May Lambert, of 57 George street, trading as the Central Shoe Store, .for compensation for the death of her husband, £IOOO, medical and funeral expenses, £sl 4s, and costs, and such further relief as might in the circumstances be just. After hearing the evidence the court awarded plaintiff the sum of £IOOO, with medical and funeral expenses £SO, costs £ls, doctor’s fees £4 4s, and witnesses expenses on the Magistrate’s Court scale. The defendant was not represented by counsel, Mr T. O’Shea appearing for the plaintiff. In the statement of claim the plaintiff said that she was the wife of Percy Thomas Stokes, deceased, boot salesman, of. Dunedin, and that she was the administratrix of deceased’s estate. On January 9, 1930, the deceased was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment at the shop of the defendant at 57 George street. The accident consisted of a cut to the first finger of his left hand, as a result of which septic poisoning ensued. Her husband died of - acute scpticsemia on January 16. There were three children, and the average weekly earnings of the deceased were £7 10s. She and her children were totally dependent upon his earnings, and accordingly she sued for compensation. She claimed from the separate estate of the defendant:—(l) Compensation, £1000; (2) medical and funeral expenses, £sl 4s; (3) costs and such further relief as might in the circumstances be just. The defendant, in her statement, denied any knowledge of the accident, and said that if the deceased met with any accident it did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment with her. The plaintiff in evidence said that her husband had remarked to her at the time of the accident fhat he had cut his finger at the shop. Dr Walden Fitzgerald gave evidence in respect to the illness of the deceased, who, ho said, had mentioned that he had cut his finger at work. Witness had no reason to doubt that statement, and personally did not doubt it. Dr Gerald Fitzgerald gave corroborative evidence, and there was further evidence in regard to the accident suffered by the deceased. His Honor, in summing up, said that the evidence showed that the deceased had cut his finger in the course of his employment in the shop of the defendant; Evidently it was a part of his duties to use a knife for sundry purposes connected with his work, and it was apparent that he had met with his accident while using that instrument.. Some days after the accident, but before he was aware of the serious consequences that were likely to follow, he suffered some pain from the finger and remarked about the accident. From this point the medical evidence carried the case on. There was no break at all in the chain of evidence, and judgment would have to be given for the full amount claimed, £IOOO, together with medical and funeral expenses, £SO, costs, £ls, two doctors’ fees, £4 4s, and witnesses expenses on the Magistrate's Court scale.