BAD DRAFTSMANSHIP.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10479, 15 October 1912, Page 3

BAD DRAFTSMANSHIP.

Per Press Association, ; Wellington, October 14. Comment upon draftsmanship ■was made in an Arbitration Court decision delivered to-day. The case was one in which a waiter claimed compensation from a. hotelkeeper for permanent injuries tOjhis hand caused by the bursting of a soda water bottle. Believing that he had recovered from the accident plaintiff signed his discharge from further’liabiiity, but his counsel contended that the agreement could not stand as it had not been certified to by a Magistrate or an Inspector of Factories as required by section 10 of the Amending Act. The Court held that plaintiff was bound by his agreement unless he could prove permanent disablement and the case was adjourned. The Judge referred to the difficult position a Magistrate or inspector was placed in-by the Amending Act. The words in section 10 seemed to have been taken from section 58 of the principal Act. It is unfortunate,” he added, “That legislation on this subject which ought to be particularly clear and intelligible should have been reduced to such a state of confusion and absurdity by careless and incompetent drafting. It is desirable that this should be remedied as soon as possible by the Legislature.