IN MEMORIAM.
CALLAGHAN. — In loving memory of my dear husband, Erie, who passed away December 16, 1945.
As I loved you, so I miss you, in my memory you are dear.
Loved, remembered, longed for always, As it dawns this first sad year.
— Inserted by his loving wife, Runa.
CALLAGHAN. — In loving memory of Eric, who passed away December 16, 1945.
We have only your memory, dear Eric, To remember our whole life through,
But your goodness will linger forever, As we treasure the image of you.
— Inserted by Myra and Jack.
CALLAGHAN. — In loving memory of our dear brother, Eric Desmond, who passed away December 16, 1945.
You left behind some aching hearts That loved you most sincere —
That never can, nor never will, Forget you, Eric, dear.
— Inserted by Addie and Ina.
CALLAGHAN. — In loving memory of our dear brother, Eric, who passed away at Dunedin, December 16, 1945. “Ever remembered.” — Inserted by his loving brother and sister-in-law, Lionel and Eunice, and Dick.
CALLAGHAN. — In loving memory of Eric, who passed away December 16, 1945.
Pals in life, pals in death, A beautiful memory is all we have left;
Pals we were in sunshine and rain, And pals we will be when we meet again.
A nature you couldn’t help loving, A heart that was purer than gold;
To those who knew him and loved him, His memory will never grow old.
— Hyde and Bill. -Evening Star, 16/5/1946.
COMPENSATION CLAIM
“LEGISLATURE AT FAULT”
An apportionment of compensation money in respect to the death of Eric Desmond Callaghan was sought on behalf of the widow and children in the Compensation Court at Dunedin yesterday. Judge Ongley presided. The plaintiff, Runa Florence Callaghan, widow, of Green Island, was represented by Mr G. M. Lloyd, and the defendant, the Public Trust, by Mr C. N. Irvine. Mr J. S. Sinclair represented the first child, James Eric Callaghan, and the second child, Barry Rugby Callaghan, was represented by Mr A. N. Haggitt.
The plaintiff sought such lump sum or other relief as the court deemed fit, together with the costs of the proceedings. The defendant has already paid £225 in respect of liability under the Workers Compensation Act, 1922.
Meaning of “Dependent” Mr Lloyd explained that Callaghan met with an accident at Burnside on March 29, 1943, and underwent an operation on November 4, 1944. From October 20, 1944, to March 23, 1945, he had been totally incapacitated and he had died on December 16, 1945, as a result of his injuries and a disease which intervened. The second child had been born 18 months after the date of the accident and 15 months before the date of death of the father. The court was asked to determine if this child was a dependent within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Seeking a liberal interpretation of the Act, Mr Lloyd said that if a child were born to a worker after the worker’s death, such child was deemed to be dependent as if born in the worker’s lifetime.
Mr Sinclair contended that the Act implied that a child was a dependent if born after an accident to the father, but before the father’s death. There was a clear presumption, he said, that the wife and all children living at the date of the fathers death were dependents. If they were dependent on a worker they should be his dependents.
His Honor: Not within the definition of the Act.
Mr Sinclair submitted that the words “in the same manner as if born in his father’s lifetime” assumed that a child living at the time of its father’s death was a dependent.
Definition in Act Mr Haggitt said that it would be "monstrous” if children born after their father suffered an accident, but before his death, were not deemed his dependents while a child born after the father’s death was, under the Act, a dependent. Mr Haggitt quoted references to support his submission that dependency was purely a question of fact and not of law.
“According to the definition in the Act,” his Honor remarked, "total dependency does not make persons total dependents.”
Mr Haggitt: I ask his Honor to disregard the definition in the Act.
“To do justice, I would require to disregard the definition,” his Honor said. "I am not entitled to suppose that the Legislature intended to deal unjustly with the children. I cannot amend the law, but I can endeavour to read an interpretation into it. I will certainly try to do this, and will, take the matter up with the Legislature.”
Mr Haggitt said that it was a great pity there was no fund from which the cost of such actions as the one before the court could be met. The Legislature was at fault and not the plaintiff. His Honor reserved his decision. -Otago Daily Times, 16/10/1947.
CHILD CLASSED AS DEPENDANT
BOY BORN 18 MONTHS AFTER FATHER’S ACCIDENT
(PA-) DUNEDIN; May. 26.
Whether a child born 18 months after an accident to his father was a dependant within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act was decided in a reserved judgment given by Judge Ongley in the Compensation Court to-day. The effect of the judgment was to answer the question in the affirmative.
The father, Eric Desmond Callaghan, an employee of the New Zealand Refrigerating Company, Ltd., met with an accident on March 29, 1943. He had then one son aged about one year. Another son was born on September 29, 1944. The father died on December 16, 1945, as a result of the accident.
“Barry Rugby Callaghan,” the judgment stated, “as a son of the deceased worker, is a near relative, but the question is whether he was a dependant. — whether he was (1) domiciled or resident in New Zealand at the time of the accident, and (2) wholly or partly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased worker at the time of the accident.”
After quoting a section of the Act which stated that the children of a deceased worker “shall be conclusively presumed to have been dependent on the earnings of that worker at the time of the accident which caused his death,” the judgment held that the Court must presume that Barry Rugby Callaghan was so dependent. The judgment added that it must be presumed that Barry Rugby Callaghan was in existence at the time of the accident. “Existence nowhere would be a contradiction,”' the Judge continued. “It seems to follow that I must give his presumed existence location and domicile.”
The judgment declared that the widow, Runa Florence Callaghan, and the sons, James Eric Callaghan and Barry Rugby Callaghan, were the sole dependants of the deceased worker. -AG, 27/5/1948.
No comments:
Post a Comment