ARBITRATION COURT

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160812, 20 November 1920, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

TODAY’S SITTING

A SEAMAN’S CLAIM. ~\ The Arbitration Court this morning heard preliminary evidence in the claim J. Harry Mandlll, seaman, v. C. W. Williams, owner of the steamer Huia. It was alleged that plaintiff was descending the gangway on May Bth last while the vessel was at Castlecllffi wharf, and that owing to the bad lighting arrangements he dropped about 10 feet and seriously injured his shoulder. His claim was for £2 10/- per week. Captain Burton, master of the vessel, stated that he did not learn till next morning that plaintiff bad met with an accident about 7 o'clock on the previous evening. Witness sent for a doctor to examine Mandill. The latter admitted to the doctor that he had had' a couple of drinks. When witness went ashore to ring up the doctor, he noticed a broken whisky flask lying alongside the gangway. Judging by the appearance of plaintiff next morning, witness thought he had had a pretty good night out. On the previous Tuesday he had occasion t<9 put) plaintiff away, from the vessel at Wellington as : the latter was intoxicated. Witness then submitted a rough sketch of the position of the gangway on that particular night. The rise and fall of the tide would be from lift to 15ft at Castlecliff. A person coming from the whdrf to ■ the deck by the gangway would be facing a light on the boat. It was Mandill’s duty to light this lamp, but on this evening the light was , placed in position by the cook. To Mr Collins; Witness could not say whether the broken whisky flask ■ had belonged to plaintiff. He did not know that Mandill fell 10 to 12 feet and that he was unconscious all ' night. What Mandill told witness was that he had not beeii able to sleep all night owing to the pain in his shoulder. The hearing was then adjourned.

MACHINIST’S CLAIM,

John Charles Williams (Mr O’Regan) claimed under the Workers’ Compensation Act against the Marton Sash, Door and Timber Co. (Mr Treadwell) for injuries alleged to have been sustained while working in defendant’s factory on October 24, In the statement of claim it appeared that plaintiff was working a machine when a belt broke and struck him with great force in the region of the heart. His body was severely bruised and he was thrown with Considerable force [On thft floor. Plaintiff continued to work for the remainder of the day and also returned to work on the following day, and during the afternoon he collapsed. Plaintiff was unconscious for some time and had since been suffering from partial paralysis and was unable to work. His average earnings prior to the accident were £3 6/- per week and he claimed £1 18/- per week from the time of the accident to the hearing of the claim and such other compensation as the Court may decide. In his evidence plaintiff stated that he struck the floor with considerable force on the end of his spine. He had not been able to work since the accident, and suffered pain in the back of the head, and general weakness. . To Mr Treadwell: He was billiard marking at the club and receiving £2 10/- per week. He had been cleaning out offices at Marton and received 17/6 a week for this sind 10/- for attending to the Technical School, his wife assisting. The point in issue in the case was whether the paralysis referred to by ths plaintiff was due to the accident or not. The defence consisted of evidence by medical men. . , Dr Wall stated that he had examined the plaintiff on' March sth and had coma to the opinion that the stroke could not be attributed to the accident; it was a typical apoplectic seizure. Witness regarded the accident as a coincidence and had nothing to do with' the seizure. Dr Watson, of Bulls, who examined the patient four days after the accident, expressed a similar view. Dr J. M. Warren, of Marton, who had examined the plaintiff on the evening of the seizure confirmed the remarks oi the two previous witnesses. Mr O’Regan suggested that the Court should exercise its power and state a case for reference to a medical expert. His Honor said that he preferred to follow tho usual practice of the parties selecting an expert and for his Honor to confer with him. This course was agreed to.