Article Index


COCKERMOUTH COUNTY COURT.
        Wednesday, April 26.
(Before His Honour Judge STEAVENSON)

Part # 1


Advocates present: - Mr.

T. Shepherd LITTLE, barrister-at-law

Mr. A. P. THOMAS, barrister-at-law, Liverpool

Mr. G. FALCON

Mr. T. MILBURN, Workington

Mr. G. A. LIGHTFOOT, Carlisle

Mr. K. J. HOUGH, Official receiver

Mr. H. BRAITHWAITE, Whitehaven

Mr. A. W. J. WALKER, Cockermouth

Mr. G. W. TURNEY, Maryport.

THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT
        A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM.

       Mary Ann HOLLIDAY, widow, 4, Shaw-street, Netherton, Maryport, claimed
on behalf of herself and her two children, the sum of £157  19s from Messrs.
RITSON & Co., shipbuilders, Maryport, as compensation for the death of her
husband, Joseph HOLLIDAY, who was employed by the firm as a labourer at the
Maryport Harbour, on March 9th, 1899. He was then working at the repair of a wharf,
and was struck by a deal which slipped through the noose and fell when being
lowered from the top of the wharf, causing a compound fracture of the skull
and death.

       Mr. T. Shepherd LITTLE, instructed by Mr. TURNEY, appeared for the
Plaintiff, and Mr. A. P. THOMAS, instructed by Messrs. HAYTON, SIMPSON, & FISHER,
Cockermouth, was for the defendants.

       Mr. LITTLE said the action was brought under the Workman's
Compensation Act. The defendants were large shipbuilders alongside of Maryport harbour.
Deceased was in their employ as labourer, and on the day of the accident he was
employed on the South Pier. After giving the facts of the case, he admitted
he could not prove under the Act that they were entitled to more than £150.
With regard to the facts, he didn't think there was any dispute in regard to
them. Defendants were repairing the south pier under a contract for £150, and the
dock, wharf, &c., came under the Factory Act, he being employed as a labourer,
although at the precise moment he was sent out not to do work on a ship.

       There were 14 hoists or cranes on the dock &c., which brought the
action within section 5 of the Act of 1878, and also all sections of that Act. He
further said that the strongest contention, and one which was actually
conclusive, was that the deceased was being employed by the defendants in repair of
the harbour.

       He called Mary Ann HOLLIDAY, widow (25), who said her eldest child was
three years of age and the youngest 7 months. She had no other means exce
pting the wages of her late husband.

       George JACKSON, 59, Kirkby-street, labourer, in the employment of
Messrs. RITSON, deposed he had worked eight weeks for the firm. Deceased was
employed in the channel throwing stones to the witness, which were being
transferred to the ballast-box. This was a portion of the pier. RITSON's men were
working at other portions of the pier. HODGSON was on the deck loading deal planks
down to the carpenters, who were working in the Ballast box.

       HODGSON said: "Look out below." The plank was over the pier, and he
was going to lash, but witness didn't see him. Witness called out to HOLLIDAY
that they were going to lower a deal over. Deceased shifted, and witness turned
his back. He next saw the deceased lying unconscious in the water, and he
picked him up. He saw his injuries.

       By His Honour: The plank was lying along side of the deceased. One end
was close to his feet.

       By Mr. LITTLE: He died at four o'clock the same day.

       Cross examined by Mr. THOMAS: The ballast-boxes were inside the pier,
The top of the pier was used as a promenade. It was open wood work, and the
tide flowed under the pier. The deceased got  away as far as he could towards
the channel water. He had got so far away from the pier that he was actually in
the water when the plank struck him. The men were repairing the wood work of
the pier.

       His Honour: And filling the ballast-boxes

       Mr. THOMAS: Which was the support of them

       By Mr. LITTLE: The wood work of the pier was not open at the top.

       Mr. LITTLE: When the tide is at low water does it flow through the
bottom of the pier? No. - What stops it? The pier itself and the ballast-boxes,
which are filled with stones.

       Was he actually in the water when the plank struck him? I didn't see
him in the water before the plank struck him.

       John PALMER, 39, King-street, foreman carpenter, with Messrs. RITSON,
said he was a foreman carpenter. He saw the deal plank coming down. Deceased
had worked two six week's jobs on this same pier. They were engaged putting two
uprights and nine diagonal stays in the pier, The job had been going on for a
month, and about nine men were employed on it. The repairs were necessary to
the pier owing to a steamboat on entering the harbour running into it.

       By Mr. THOMAS: All they were doing to the stones was with the object
of repairing the wood work. The pier was a promenade for the amusement of the
people.

       By Mr. LITTLE: Are there any mooring posts between the two
lighthouses?

(to be continued)