ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2921, 9 March 1910, Page 15

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court, constituted of his Honor Mr Justice Sim, Mesins W. Scott, and J. A. M'Cullough, sat on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, day morning at 10 o'clock. A.mong other cases heard were the following: DAVIE v. MURDOCH & CO.

Claim for compensation for accident by James Davie, an employee of respondents. Mr W. D. Stewart appeared ov claimants and Mr W. L. Ivfcore foi respondents.

Mr Stewart said the question that arose was how much Davie was now entitled to. Counsel submitted it was not ooen to respondent to pay a lump sum into the court. They must submit to the award of the court, and ascertain what sum. claimant was entitled to, and the court could ascertain what the lump sum should be if it thought fit. Respondent® had paid £l4- odd into court, and counsel said they were net entitled to do that until the amount of the weekly allowance was ascertained.

His Honor: You Rave £75 already. How much more do you claim? ... Mr Stewart: The man is partially incapacitated, and he is earning nothing •low. He would be capable of earning £2 a week.

Mr Moore said Murdoch and Co. were ready to take the man back.

Mr Stewart: But he is not fit to go back. The evidence would show that. The mere fact that they made him an offer of employment should not'affect his claim. Evidence was given bv James Davie. His Honor said he had no doubt Murdoch and Co. could find some work for the man which would not be dangerous to himself or other persons. If the firm would take him back at his former wages he should go. It was a large establishment, and there should be plenty of work that he could be given, without any r ; .sk. Dr Burt" gave evidence. Mr Moore said respondent?, had paid in £ll- cdd. The position they took hit was that under the old act the total liability was £3OO for total incapacity. Under the. new act the loss of one es'e was put down at 30 .per cent, of total incapacity. The amount they had paid was £75 odd, and 30 per cent, would be £9O, and they accordingly paid in £l4 odd. ' The firm was willing to take him back at his old wage.

His Honor said the man would have to get over his nervousness and go back to work. It would only be an experiment, and if it was a failure compensation would go on. The compensation could be suspended so long as Murdoch and Co. agreed to take him back. Claimant would receive £1 6s a week (half wages) from the 31st December to date; and £1 a week during- incapacity; to be suspended if Murdoch and Co. took him back to work at his former wage. Costs to claimant five guineas, and witnesses' expenses. ROBINSON v. PORTER.

Claim for compensation by Mary Robinson against Peter Porter, Milton. Mr Win. C. MacGregor appeared c or claimant and Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C., and •Mr W. D. Stewart for respondent. Mr MacGregor said nearly all the facts were admitted, but it would be- necessary to call witnesses to prove dependency. Mr Hosking: The question of dependency and the amount. Mr MacGregor said a young lad, Walter Herbert Thomson, about 15 years of age, had been in the employment of Mr Porter when he was killed by accidental shooting. He was a son of Mrs Robinson, who had married a second time, and Mrs Robinson and her daughter were partially dependent.' While the lad was alive he was of material help to his mother. He. \va% a strong boy, and always brought her his wages. Evidence was given by Ma.ry Robinson, Chas. James Henry Thomson, and John Robinson.

Mi' Hosking said the question was whether the claimant was a dependent or not upon the boy during his life. 4s far as could be seen, the \vhole money paid by the boy, except, some items he (counsel) would refer to, had gone into the family pot. The outside amount received was £3O 12s 6d, and from that had to be taken £6 for clothes, £4 for a horse, 12s 6d for a rifle, 30s- for pocket money, and £3 for maintenance, which reduced what had been received from the lad to £ls 12s 6d.

Mr MacGregor said they would have been entitled to claim .a great deal more than they had. The pony had been sold for £B. Mr Hosking said there was nothing to show the mother was dependent on' her son at the time of the accident.

His Honor: There was a boy partly dependent. Mr Hosking: Ido not object to my friend substituting the boy for the mother.

His Honor said William Ernest Thomson would bo substituted in the plaint instead of Mary Robinson. It was thought that £SO would be a reasonable sum for compensation; to be paid to Mrs Robinson, and applied as she might think proper for the maintenance md benefit of claimant; costs, five guineas, witnesses' expenses and disbursements.