ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1125, 19 December 1914, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

GSCICBDWB SIHING.

The sitting of the Arbitration Court was continued this morning »n tnelro--viuciai Council Chambers, his Honor Mr Justice Stringer presiding. Mr w . L'rvor was present as eniPftV?™. r *" nre.,entative and Mr J. A. M'Cullough •s workers' representative. WOOLLEN MILT. EMPLOYEES' AWARD.

The agreement reached between the Janterbury Woollen Mills Employees ad the employers, as recommended by .lie Cono.Jatio» Council, was heard. The agreement intended that the ward should operate from October 4, lit since then the Court had made u aw-rd in Dim-din. wb ch operated rrom December 14, and the representaive of the employers (Mr Leithhead sked that the Christchurch award ou!d operate from that date also. Mr Leithhead further stated that hey wanted the awprd ba ed on the dominion award, and did no' i-int the ward lvsed on the Welling.-,i award lone. The Canterbury. millers .should ! « put on the same basis as the Dundin millers. His Honor sa : d that he could not see vby the Canterbury award should not ;perate from August 4. Mr Leithhe-.d':. But the Dunedin •iward has been since, dating from December 14. His Honor. Two wrongs do rot make a richt. Mr Leithhead contended that no nvnrd should be made retrospective. His Honor: But supposing we were wrong in making;, the Dunedin award operate from December 14, and the Court .".mended that award to date back to August 4," would you agree to that? Mr Leithhead: I suppose we wou'd hare to. aurce if we were all put on the same basis. His Honor: T should like some stronger argument why the award <*hou'd not date back to # August 4. Have you any other objection"?? Mr Leithhead that the. millers hud m-\de no p r ovisiori. for 'the new .°ward They had' made no inp'veased cos* due to the increase in thp rate of wages, conspguently the milVrs ''wou'd I>» ca"ed upon to pay out about£4.oo if the award, was. made retrospective.

Mr Revell. who appeared for the omp'ovees. Riid that. tV>r> Union h; n d done all ; t oou'd to keep the. agreement made with th" employers', and wore rather surprised th'i~t th n y have co ir, e b'fare. the Court with this fresh application.

Fi« Fonor said that the Court would consider the matter.

COMPENSATION CASES

NW ZEALAND PROVISION AND PRODUCE CO.

Charles George Raynor (Mr H. D. Acland), claimed from the New Zealand Provision and Produce Company (Mr S. G. Raymond, Tv.C, with him Mr W. J. Hunter), compensation for an accident to his leg. The case for the claimant was that he had suffered from a broken leg, and the only question was as to the amount of damage consequent upon the alleged inability of r>lai"tilf to herd his foot.

Plaintiff, giving evidence, said that before the accident he earned good wages, but since then he had bpr.n un-able-to do any work. His ankle was now stiff, and prevented ..him from carrying on his occupation of. a .slaughterman. At the time of thn ;;ocident he was employed as 1 a. casual labourer by the defendants.

Drs Acland and Anderson gave evidence.

After the Court h"d considered the case, his Honor said that it was evidont f''nm. the medical evidence that the plaintiff had suffered in regard to his work. The Court would allow plaintiff £125. MANSON v. SIM : AND JOHNSON v.- SIM.

Tn Manson (Mr Cassidy) v. Sim (Mr Alper*), and Johnson (Mr Cassidy) v. Sim (MrtAlpers). the-plaintiffs claimed compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act for the loss of their husbands, who were lost on.the fishing launch Te Huia, which left Wellington on October 7, 1913. and was last seen off the Lvttelton Heads on October 9, 1913. The boat met with a severe southerly storm, and was seen running for shelter, by the signalman at the Heads. There were no signs of any wreckage, and' it wa-«-'assumed that the vessel went down. The loss of the men was admitted. The boat was owned by defendant. , Mr Cnssidv said that the main question was whether-the men were under the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act. and abo. whether Miuson, the mate, was in the employ of Sims or of the captain, -Mr. Johnston. Sims hid the crew insured in the South British Company for £IOOO, but when the plaintiffs presented their claims the obligations were repudiated on the ground that" the men were not working for wages, although other papers previously i~sued admitted that.

"Evidence was given by both plaintiffs.

For the defence. Mr Alpers claimed that, although the papers produced by the .claimants showed that the -defendant Sim apparently purchased the boat, thr> facts of the case were altogether different. The defendant only financed the purchase of the beat by Johnston. Defendant gave evidence and said that he only advanced the money to Johnston, and had no security as he did not take any of the risk. He bad advancpd £270 for the boat, the arrangement he had m-ade with Johnston was that all the profits should be received bv t-h" defendant who would credit plaintiff with the amount by deducting from the loan of £270. Defendant said that he could neither read nor write.

After further evidence had been hoard, the Court decided that the case should be continued on Monday morning. The Court then adinurned.