CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3997, 2 August 1915, Page 7

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

INQUIRY INTO THE DEATH OF A RABBITEIt.

ARBITRATION COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT. The attention of the Arbitration ■Court was occupied for some time on Saturday morning, hearing a claim for compensation brought by Charlotte Brown, of Wairoa, widow of thelate Charles Brown against the East Coast Rabbit Board. Mr F. W. Nolan appeared for plaintiff, ami Mr L. T. Burnard (instructed by Messrs Brandon and Ilislop, of Wellington) for the Rabbit Board. Mr Nolan, in opening, said the only questions in dispute were as to whether''the deceased was in the employ of tho Board when lie met lus death. Ho? asked to have the statement oi claim amoudi’d to inchidle provision For a child born since the death of tho deceased. There was no contract in writing between deceased and the Board. He would produce evidence •showing that rabbiters were paid whether they worked on Sundays or any other days.

His Honor said that shooting goats sounded very much like sport. Mr Nolan said it did, but the practice was for the rabbiters to shoot goats in order to get meat lor their dogs. His Honor: Did the dogs require a change of diet. P Why not have fed them on rabbits? Mr Nolan: Because the work oi the Board had been so effectively carried out that there were no rabbits to be obtained. . His Honor: That is very satistaotory. Proceeding, counsel .said that lie would prove that tho Board’s rabhiters were given instructions to bunt for dogs’ meat in order that the dogfi would not be tempted to worry the sheep of pastoralists oil whose lands they• bad to work. Evidence would bo adduced showing teat the dogs belonging to deceased were almost starving at the time. Mr Nolan asked permission to put . in an affidavit from Oldham. a mate of deceased, who was working with him at the' time of his death, and who had left with, the New Zealand Reinforcements. The evidence was taken m Wellington. Mr Burnard objected, as the evi donee had not been subjected to crossexamination, and the Board Is scl.citors had not been notified) , . Charlotte Brown, the plaintiff, stated that at the date- of her husband’s death she had three eliildien, all of wlunn were still alive, and one bad been horn since. Up to the time ( of her husband s *? death, they had boon j entire!v dependent noon his wages. ■ She was in camp with her husband up to the time ot his death. He had live dogs, which lie used to teed upon ■ ■wild pigs, goats, or mutton if they i could get it. The dogs were very sliort of food at the tune, and witness heard her -husband and Oldham, another rabbiter, arranging to go out’ and get some dogs’ meat. As the men did not come back, witness went) out to look for them, and found UWham beside her husband at- the bottom of a cliff. Her husband was then unconscious. He had been working about 11 months for the Rabbit Board and received 11s a day. had received an account from Dr Millet for £ls, and an account tor £(> lor burial, in respect of the death o! her husband. , , , ~ By Mr Burnard: Deceased got- lo* 6d a day for 6 days a week, and w:p , paid wet or dry. ; Counsel: He had to provide two . horses suid his own team of dogs. j His Honor: Ten and sixpence a day 1 does nob seem very liberal pay lor aman who has to provide two horses and a team of dogs. dt is a womtei that they have not been to the Coint before this. . 1 Andrew McKay. an inspector un i tho Rabbit. Board, said that deceased received Bis a day and 6d per day tor j dog tueker. The men were given m j '.tractions not to starve their dogs.

in cjiso tliov should act hungry am worn- sheep. liabbitors "ere l>a"l tor time spent m huntmrr tor / io - h meat In employ nip; men witness <lid not make any exception tor da vs • A man was not paid it he worked on a Sunday, but he was paid if he worked on a public hoUiay \\ itness paid deceased lip to da\ u died, as witness considered he was m the Board’s employ up to the day »e died. Witness had always worked for the Board on Now A ear s Bay an< been pai<t for it. By Mr Burnard: Ihe men "ete paid for working six days a week wet or dry. Prior to the Board making an allowance to the men ot bd a day with which to supply dogs’ meat-, accounts used to he sent tn hy the settlers for mutton bought to teed tile of nd>hiters. The Board doekled that it would not in iut-ure ie- , cognise any such accounts, but ma< ® I asTallowance of <kl a day to each ra >- biter to pay for food for their dogs Witness did not know that- the- ni.n were out on New A ear s Day. 'l’o Air Nolan : He knew " hen he paid deceased, that he had been out on New Year’s Day. • , 1 ■Jesse Bowles, inspector lor tin Board, said that the deceased had been working under Ins, personal supervision. AVhile hunting for dogs meat the men were treated as being in the. employ of the Board, and " o t! paid for the' time they spent- m this way. During the last- six , month.-station-owners absolutely; refused to s(dl mutton. Deceased s camp "•»- about eight miles from Molmka, and it was very to get- mutton. Pigs -and goats wk'-ro, however, numerous, and these were used b.r .. .gs meat. They had worked out the purchase;!ble dogs’ meat in the locality and had to depend on what they

could get by hunting. By Mr Burnard: If a rabbiter got on to the track of a rabbit on a Sunday he was expected to follow it up and kill it. Ho was allowed a day off during the week if lie had worked on the Sunday. At the price of mutton now rabbiters would be poorly paid if they Acre allowed 3s a day cacti for dogs’ meat.

To His Honor: The snot where deceased fell over the cliff was a steep and rough face. Goats frequented the locality.

/ Concerning the affidavit, His Honor said ho would admit Oldham’s evidence, and assume that deceased did not throw himself over the precipice. Mr Burnard, foi the Board, contended that the legal position was that men had to provide, a team of dogs and keep them in efficient condition. They were paid 10s a day anil were allowed 6d a day. to pay for food for their dogs. fie quoted authorities showing that tnero was no contractual obligation which made the procuring of dogs’ meat part of their employment. His Honor pointed out that it was in tlie interests of tlie Board that the rabbiters should get food for their dogs as speedily as possible. Proceeding, Mr Burnard said that the terms of employment were rather peculiar. The rabbiters if they only worked two days in the week owing to had weather, yet were paid for the full week. Then they were expected to make up for the days they hail been off. ft could not be, said that the accident had arisen out of the employment. The position was the same as if deceased iiad gone to buy dogs’ meat, and had met bis death while doing so. . His Honor said that the accident occurred while deceased was in the employment of the Board, but the question was, Did the, accident arise out of that employment? Mr Nolan, in replying, submitted that the evidence was clear that the men were paid for the tune employed in hunting for food for their dogs. The accident from which deceased died was one arising out of and in the, course of his employment. The occupation in which deceased was engaged at the time of his death was to the mutual advantage ol him.se.lt and Jus employer, and was, therefore, a. case for which compensation was justly payable. Hunting for dogs' food was a necessary incident in tlie occupation of a rabbiter. Mr Burnard said that in the event of the Court sustaining the claim deceased’s wages could not be set down at £3 3s. as he was allowed something for keeping a horse. - After conferring, bis Honor said be would have to look into the case, and would reserve judgment.