ARBITRATION COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 5543, 30 July 1907, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

TIMA HU—FRIDAY, JULY 37th. , (.Before His Honour Judge Shu and . Messrs Brown anh Slater.) The Court resumed at 10 a.in. IVURIxERS’ COMPENSATION. The hearing of the compensation case Oavanugh v. Black and Soa was resumed. Mr Rollcslon continued his argu-. meut on the case for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond replied. Judgment was reserved. AN INJURED EYE. Alex. Smith v. Christchurch Meat Company.—Application for declaration of liability. Mr Alpors for claimant, Mr Raymond for respondents. (The real respondents are the South British insurance Company). Mr. Alpcrs stated the case. In January last the claimant, a blacksmith employed at the Smithlield Works, had an eye injured by a splinter of steel Hying oil' the anvil and piercing the oyo. Thu Christchurch Meat Company paid him something on account, and got him to ‘sign a receipt in full as a release

from all demands. Claimant could not see to road the document, it was not read to him, and ho signed it under the imression that ho was signing a receipt for half wages, and that the question was still to bo settled. Ho was again employed by the Company at the same wages as before, but there was no guarantee that the injury would -hot practically cause his Incapacity for \Vork. Mr Alpcrs asked leave to amend the claim by asking for a lump sum. Alter taking evidence at Mr Raymond’s request it was agreed that Drs Unwin and Bowc should prepare for liling u joint report on the present condition of the claimant’s eyes in view of future possibilities. The Court reserved its decision. A LOST FINGER. W. W. Caiger v. >K. McLennan, claim for compensation for a lost finger of the left hand. Mr C. T. H. Perry for claimant, Mr Raymond for respond cnt. Mr Perry stated the case. Plain tiff, owner of a traction engine and saw bench, agreed to hire the plant to respondent to cut up some, timber at £1 a day, the hirer to pay the hands tand employ those then working at the machine, including plain till' himself as engine-driver. They had been at work three weeks when plaintiff accidentally had the left fore-finger cut off by the saw. Ho was treated at the hospital by Dr Unwin, and after r*eov#ry went to work but found himself loss able to do his work. He, therefore, claimed compensation for reduced capacity at 1/6 per day, or in the alternative for a lump sum. Dr Unwin described the injury, and the consequent decrease of power and usefulness in that hand. Respondent gave his version of the bargain, which was that Gaiger was to get 30/- a day for engine and driver and S/- a’ day for other men. He had nothing to do with the mill or the men, and did not interfere with them at all. Did not remember anything, being said about £1 a day for the engine and 10/- for the driver. When Gaiger offered to cut boards by contract’ made no - reply. Wanted the whole done by contract it it would pay. Did not .ay the men, but Gaiger. Was not interested in this case, being insured. Dr Bowe expressed the opinion that the injury would not reduce the claimant’s capacity as an engine-driver.— Judgment was reserved. ANOTHER FINGER. George Martin,, tepmster, v. Michael Crowley, farmer, Morvcn, claiming for loss of the fourth linger of the left hand through poisoning,when working as band-cuttor. Mr Alpers for claimant, Mr. Redmond for respondent, who, was protected by insurance. Mr Alpers said the fact of the injury Was admitted ; the Court was asked to assess compensation. Claimant had been earning Ss to 10s a day. Twentyfour weeks had elapsed since the accident, and at half-wages (30s a week) he would now bo entitled to £36. The insurance company had paid into Court £35, or a minus quantity for future disablement. Dr. Unwin gave evidence as to the injury. Me supposed claimant would bo able to do a labourer’s work, and earn full wages in about three weeks’ time. Dr. Drew was of opinion that for holding a fork or shovel hoi would become in a month or so ns good as over. Air. Raymond said the claim had boon £IOO, and respondent had paid in £35. Judgment was given for a lump sum of £63, or a weekly payment of 27/-. Claimant was allowed the usual costs. A BROKEN THIGH.

Neil Bell v. Lavers, claim for compensation for a broken thigh, caused by an accident in May 1905. Mr. Alpers for claimant ; Mr. Rolleston for respondent. Claimant was employed ns a labourer on respondent's farm at £1 a week and found. In May, 1905, master and man were carting grain to Morvcn station, and were rcturumg homo with the two empty drays when something wont wrong with respondent's team and it stopped, and claimant stopped his team when he caught up. Claimant stooped to do something with parcels on the floor of the dray, ami as he was rising again his team started, and he fell over the back of the dray, and sustained a fracture of the neck of the thigh. Ho was taken to the Oamarn Hospital, was there for some month’s under Dr. Garland, and then returned to the farm using a crutch mid a stick. Nearly a year after the accident, he wont to the Timarn Hospital, and was under treatment there foi; a time, and became able to walk with a stick, but was unable to stoop, his thigh being stiff. Whilst at the farm lie pottered about and did what lie could. Eventually he found himself uncomfortable there, left the farm, and got odds and ends of employment. Mr. Rolleston, in defence, said ho relied upon no claim having been made within three months. The convcrsatioo in the Oamaru Hospital did not amount to a claim, and it could not be supported by a payment made many months later. He proceeded to argue this non-suit point at length, and then Mr. Alpers replied, contending strenuously that the actions of respondent amounted to a recognition of a claim, and a waiver of the legal objection. 'Mr. Mr. Rolleston, in reply, said the payments wore ns wages, and wore useless for the purpose at* tributed to them by Mr. Alpers. The Court, after consultation, upheld the objection that no claim had been made within the statutory time, the ease must therefore be dismissed. This case, which lasted two hours, concluded the business of the silling, and the Court rose at 9.30 p.m.