COMPENSATION AWARDED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18387, 3 May 1934, Page 6

COMPENSATION AWARDED

ACCIDENT TO MAORI LEFT EYE INJURED Compensation for injury to his left eye was awarded by the Arbitration Court early this afternoon to Traveller Paku, who proceeded against the East Coast Commissioner, by whom lie had been employed on a scrub cutting contract at Te Reinga when the accident which caused the injury to his eye occurred. The hearing occupied the attention of Mr. Justice Frazer and the assessors, Messrs. W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith, throughout the first half of the day. Mr. F. H. Jones, of Wairoa, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O’Leary, of Wellington, if or the defendant. 1 Evidence for the plaintiff in addition to that published in to-day’s first edition was culled by Mr. Jones. Peter Olsen, farmer and contractor, of Te Reinga, gave evidence of the plaintiff’s ability as a worker prior to the accident, stating that he was an expert shearer, fencer, horse breaker, and scrub-cutter, and at other similar occupations. Witness stated that the plaintiff had usually boon the “boss man” in all the gangs.' He gave instances of the loss of sight tho plaintiff had suffered as a result of the accident.

This concluded the plaintiff’s case. The first witness for tho defence was Dr. Stuart Scoular, eye-spociaiist, of Napier, who stated that after the accident the plaintiff was sent to him on November 7. The witness described the condition of tho plaintiff’s eye at that stage, and tho treatment which he gave and an operation performed on December 19. When witness saw the plaintiff on January 10 vision of the injured eye wag at least 6/36th. It was reasonable to suppose that tho eyo could be improved beyond the 6/36th with use. Witness had examined tho eye again this morning and found that it had not gone back. The plaintiff had not suffered the total loss of industrial use of the injured eye,- witness would assess the loss of industrial use in respect of that eye at about 50 per cent. Witness believed that within three months the earning capacity of the plaintiff, having the good eye, would not be diminished at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jones, Dr. Scoular stated that a man with 6736th vision could earn a living at laboring work, but hot could not do shearing, fencing, scrub-cutting, or horse-breaking. Ho would not be an A grade worker at ordinary laboring, but he could earn a living. Using both eyes in three or four months the plaintiff should suffer no loss of earning power whatever at any of the occupations referred to. After a brief retirement, His Honor announced the court’s finding, which ho prefaced with the remark that the court had been able to make only more or less of a rough guess at the degree of incapacity. It was admitted that the plaintiff had been totally incapacitated for 22i weeks, and for that period lie' was entitled to full compensation. The question then arose as to tho extent to which lie would he partially incapacitated by the {injury to bis left eye. After reviewing tho medical evidence, His Honor announced that tho court had decided to allow the plaintiff full eomnensiftioii for the 22 weeks referred to. 50 per cent, for tho period from the cud of the 221 weeks’ period until tho day of hearing, anil 15 por cent, thereafter, with costs, £l2 12s medical expenses, medical witnesses’ expenses, £4 4s, and witnesses’ and travelling expenses.