COMPENSATION FOR MINING ACCIDENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2363, 8 June 1899, Page 20

COMPENSATION FOR MINING ACCIDENT.

«ircri)ENTs.

Mr Justice Edwards gave a decision of considerable importance at "Wellington on Monday in the case of M'Kenna v. Craig and others, arising out of the fatal accident at Craig's freehold claim, near Hokitika.

His Honor, in his reserved judgment, said this was an action brought by the father of a deceased miner who was employed in the defendants' mine, and was there killed by an accident, alleging that the death was caused by the negligence of the defendants, and claiming under " The Deaths by Accident Compensation Act. 1880." to recover damages, for hie own

? benefit, and for the benefit of the other person! „ mentioned in the statement of claim. ~ "The ob* j jection as to the jurisdiction of this courft i failed, and the other objections which had been : made as to the right of \he plaintiff to maintain this action did not, his Honor thought, ' have^ any substance. It had been contended ; that the deceased, M'Kenna, who was a wages man employed by M'Kinnon, one of the defendants, to work in his place in the mine, stood in the place of M'Kinnon as one of the partners -in the mine, and that consequently he was not a servant of the defendants ether than M'Kinnon, and that the defendants -other than M^Kinnon were therefore under no liability to the plaintiff. His Honor waa satisfied that the deceased, M'Kenna, was a servant of the mineowners, and that he was subject to their control, and to dismissal by them for just cause, though as between M'Kinnon and the other defendants the wages had to be paid by M'Kinnon. By agreement between the defendants, the general control and management of the

underground working of the mine were left with Roberts, one of the mine-ownors, who was

sin charge of the work at the time when the "accident occurred, and was one of the persons killed by it. M'Kenrta was employed as a trucker," in removing dirt taken from the face of the drive in which the accident happened, by Roberts and by Kenny, another of the mineowners, and under the direct control of Roberts. There certainly was evidence of negligence on the part of the. mine-owners, but, in his Honor's opinion, it was not necessaiy for the plaintiff to prove negligence on their pait, for it seemed to him to be plain that the case was governed by section 333 of " The Mining Act, 1881," which provided that any accident occurring in a mine should be prim* facie eviden.ee that such accident occurred through some negligence on the part of the owner. It also appeared to him to be plain that nil the provisions of part VI of the act, which were designed for the regulation of the working of mines, and for the protection of persons working therein, applied to all mines, whether upon Crown lands or private lands. It was impossible to estimate the amount of the plaintiff's loss with any degree of accuracy, but his Honor thought that it might fairly be estimated Rt JE225, for "which sum he would have judgment accordingly. Judgment for the plaintiff, with, costs.