John Champion, (1889-13/1/1905). "a screen boy"

KILLED BY A COAL TRUCK. 

WESTPORT, Thursday. A lad named John Champion, 17 years of age. was run over by a truck to-day at Denniston, where he was working for the Westport Coal Company, and died at a quarter past three p.m.  -Auckland Star, 13/1/1905.

Mr M. Hannan returned overland from Westport last night, where he had been retained by the Denniston Coal Miners’ Union to conduct an action brought by Isaac Champion against the Westport Coal Company, Limited. The action was brought to recover £500 damages for the death of Champion’s son, a lad of 15 years of age (who was in the employ of the Company as a screen boy) run over by a truck on the Company’s line alongside the loading bins at Denniston in January last. Shortly after the death of the boy, the father put in a claim under “The Workers Compensation Act” for the maximum amount he would be entitled to under that Act, viz., £200. The Company declined to pay more than £100, which offer was refused. Thereupon, the plaintiff sued for £500, alleging the boy’s death was caused through the negligence of the company, and claiming damages in the alternative under “The Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act,” “The Employers Liability Act,” and “The Coal Mines Act.” The case was tried before Mr Warden Kenrick and five assessors, and after a hearing extending over two days, the assessors found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £300. At the conclusion of the case, the Warden, at the request of Mr Free, who appeared as counsel for the defendant Company, reserved judgment on the points raised by Mr Free as to the jurisdiction of the Warden’s Court, and as to the sufficiency of the notice of action given by the plaintiff.  -Greymouth Evening Star, 18/11/1905.

WESTPORT COAL COMPANY, LTD., v. ISAAC CHAMPION. 

His Honor Mr Justice Cooper read the reserved judgment of his Honor the Chief Justice, who said that various questions were raised by the appeal. The important ones were whether the accident took place in a mine, as defined by the Coalmines Acts, and (2) whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the appellant company. In the act the definition of a mine was “every colliery and coal or shale mine, whether in actual work, or discontinued, or exhausted, or abandoned; and every shaft, pit level, and inclined plane in course of being made or driven for commencing or opening, any such colliery or coalmine, and all works belonging thereto respectively.” Section 3 of the 1903 amending act provided — “If any person employed in or about any mine suffers any injury in person, or is killed . . . owing to the negligence of the owner of such mine, his agents or servants, the person so injured or his personal representatives or the personal representatives of the person so killed, may, recover from the owner compensation by way of damages as for a tort committed by such owner.” It was, therefore, necessary to inquire whether the place where the deceased, John Champion, was employed and met his death was “in or about any mine.” The evidence showed that he was employed at the screens, where the trucks of coal from the mines were discharged into the bins. When the coal was so discharged it was generally screened and then carried to the port for shipment. These screens were about one mile and a half from the brake-head. His Honor was of opinion that the deceased was employed on works belonging to a mine at the time he was killed. There was a contract — that of service — between the deceased and the company, and the question under that contract was whether the company was negligent in not providing a suitable way over their works for the use and convenience of their employees. If there was any negligence, the appellant could recover, and it was the Warden’s Court that should decide the question, and the objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Warden’s Court was not, in his Honor’s opinion, valid. But his Honor was not convinced that there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the appellants which could be left to the assessors. On this ground he thought the judgment of the District Court could not be upheld. It appeared to His Honor that the Court of Appeal was not a proper Court to assess the compensation, and that the case must be referred back to the Warden’s Court as the Court in which the action should be tried to assess the compensation. The appeal must, in his opinion, be allowed, with costs on the middle scale, as from a distance, with no costs, however, for the printing of the case, as the rules had not been complied with, and with costs in the District Court and in the Warden’s Court.

His Honor Mr Justice Chapman delivered his own judgment, in which Justices Denniston, Edwards, and Cooper coincided. He said the action was brought in the Warden’s Court of the Karamea mining district at Westport, and the appeal was from the District Court of Westland, which affirmed the decision of the Warden’s Court awarding the plaintiff £300 damages for the loss of, his son, who was killed through the alleged negligence of the respondent company. On the appeal to the District Court, the case was tried by assessors, and the judgment now appealed from was in accordance with this finding. Three questions were raised on the appeal, viz — (1) Whether the lad was a person employed in or about a mine within the meaning of section 53 of the Coalmine Act, 1891; (2) — whether the Warden's Court had jurisdiction to hear the action; and (3) whether there was any evidence to support the finding of the assessors and the judgment of the Court appealed from. 

Their Honors, after consideration of the clauses of the act, held that a person engaged in or about the screening-house, or otherwise engaged in connection with the preparation of coal which had been already won for market, was not employed in or about a mine now engaged in mining operations, and that the Warden’s Court had not jurisdiction. As to the third question, their Honors held that it was competent for that Court to review the decision of the District Court. There was no evidence to support the finding of negligence, but, on the contrary, the circumstances of the case clearly negatived such a contention. The appeal was allowed, with costs on the middle scale, as from a distance, and costs in the Courts below to be fixed by the respective Courts. The cost of printing the case to be disallowed, as the rule had not been complied with. 

Mr W. C. MacGregor appeared for the appellant and Mr M. Hannan for the respondent.   -NZ Times, 28/4/1906.

In February of 1905 the Westport Coal Company reported a profit for the previous year of £52,323 and was able to pay dividends to shareholders of 3s 6d per share, amounting to £14,000.

Waimangaroa Cemetery.  Photo from "Find a Grave."