THE PENCUIN WRECK.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2598, 4 September 1909, Page 5

THE PENCUIN WRECK.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION

[Per Press Association.! WELLINGTON, Sept. 3. The Arbitration Court sat yesterday to hear further claims for compensation lodged against the Union Steam Ship Company by relatives of persons who lost their lives as the result of the wreck of the steamer Penguin on the 12th February. His Honor Mr. Justice Sim and Mr. J. McCullough were on the bench,. Mr. Levi appeared for the Union Company. Charles Cook, solicitor (Wanganui), who has not practised since 1900, claimed compensation in respect of the death of his son Forth Rotherham Cook, who was a steward on the Penguin. Mr. Treadwell appeared in support. The claimant stated that he had done nothing to support himself since 1900, owing to ill-health. He had no means himself, but his wife had an income amounting to about £3O per year. His family now consisted of six boys and two girls: The girls earned nothing, but the boys helped to keep the house. Three of them living with him paid from 10s to 18s per week for hoard. With the sources of income claimant now had it was hard to mako both ends meet. Before his son was drowned he paid claimant 10s per week, or rather up to September, 1908, when payment ceased. Claimant is in receipt of the old age pension (£2l per annum), and is 80 years of age. He went to England in 1900, hoping to get a share in some property and become independent, but he received nothing. The 10s per week from his deceased son made all the difference in his living. Mr. Levi (for the company) said that there was a large family, and on the particulars before the Court (and an obVious conflict between statements made in the claim and those in a letter written by the deceased to his mother prior to the wreck) it was difficult to say whether claimant had received any real benefit from the deceased. It was clear, counsel submitted, that the deceased had sent no money to claimant after he left Wanganui. His Honomsaid that if that were so, it would be a question of wliat the benefits were Nprior to deceased leaving Wanganui. The case was adjourned in order to ascertain the exact date that deceased left Wanganui.