help the workman, but it is not open to it to take proceedings in the workman's name.52

7. Enforcement of awards and agreements.

The memorandum of the compensation awarded by an arbitrator under the act, when recorded in the manner prescribed by (8), may be enforced by an order of committal under the debtors' act 1869, 5.53 So an award may be enforced by judgment, summons, and imprisonment.54 An agreement to pay compensation as long as total incapacity lasts cannot be enforced by execution after the employer raises the question that total incapacity has ceased.55 So, an agreement made by the employers to pay a certain sum "during the time of the incapacity" of a workman injured while employed does ceedings in his name, where the evidence | showed that the workman was anxious to bring the proceedings, but had not the necessary money so to do. Burnham v. Hardy (1915) 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 714, [1915] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 146, 8 B. W. C. C. 57.

52 Bobbey v. Crosbie (1915) 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 856, 112 L. T. N. S. 900, 8 B. W. C. C. 236.

The county court judge is not entitled to dismiss an application for compensation because the counsel for applicant declines to state whether he appears for the workman or for an approved society; he should first hear the evidence and ascertain in that way whether it is the workman's application or that of the society. Allen V. Francis [1914] 3 K. B. (Eng.) 1065, 30 Times L. R. 695, 83 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1814, 58 Sol. Jo. 753, 7 B. W. C. C. 779.

53 Bailey v. Plant [1901] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 31, 70 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 63, 65 J. P. 49, 49 Week. Rep. 103, 83 L. T. N. S. 459, 17 Times L. R. 48.

not entitle the workman to obtain execution without a hearing, upon the question being raised by the employer that the incapacity had ceased.56

Under the British Columbia act, the county court cannot issue an execution against the employers of a deceased workman for the compensation awarded to his father, where the employer had paid money into court in full settlement of the claim before the award.57

8. Rectification of the register. A few cases have passed upon the power of the arbitrator to rectify the register under schedule II. ¶ 9 (c).58 The county court judge does not have power to set aside the judgment filed in his court by the duly appointed arbitrator, since this does not amount to a rectification of the register.59

(Eng.) 103, 82 L. J. K. B. N. S. 447, 108 L. T. N. S. 532, 57 Sol. Jo. 243, [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 292, 6 B. W. C. C. 66.

Where the respondents had come to an agreement as to the payment of compensation with a workman who was injured on board a vessel some miles from the dock, so that, as it was alleged, the act did not apply, but the payments were in the nature of a gratuity, and the county court judge had ordered such agreement registered over the respondents' objection that the agreement was purely an act of grace, and the respondents did not appeal from this order, but subsequently applied to the judge for a rectification of the register, the court of appeal held that, as there was no mutual mistake or fraud, and the memorandum had been declared to be genuine, and had been recorded as such, the matter was finally settled between the parties, and could not be gone into for the purpose of determining whether it was simply an agreement of words or one of law. Masterman v. Ropner (1909) 127 L. T. Jo. (Eng.)

The authority given to the sheriff to rectify the register does not, in an application to rectify, empower him to determine questions as to the rights and liabilities of the parties. Baird v. Stevenson [190607] S. C. (Scot.) 1259.

A county court judge may alter his verbal award, but after the written award has been signed and sealed, he has no power to alter it except to correct a clerical error. Mowlem v. Dunne [1912] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 136, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 777, 106 L. T. N. S. 611, [1912] W. N. 98, [1912] W. C. Rep. 298, 5 B. W. C. C. 382. In his signed award, the arbitrator had not given the applicant costs, and he attempted to correct the award by including a provision allowing costs to the workman.

59 British Columbia Copper Co. v. McKittrick (1913; B. C.) 7 B. W. C. C. 1037.

9. Agreements as to lump sums. Under schedule II. § 9, (d), the arbitrator has the power to pass upon the adequacy of a lump sum agreed upon by the parties for the redemption of the weekly payment,60 but if he finds the amount agreed upon inadequate, he has no power to fix the amount to be paid in redemption of the weekly payment.6: 61

An agreement to give an injured workman a lump sum and to give him "regular" employment, in lieu of all claim under the act, is not broken by a dismissal of the workman after three years, where the agreement contained no term of endurance for the employment.62

60 It is the duty of the county court judge to pass upon the adequacy of an agreement | for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum. The Segura v. Blampied (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 192.

Where a workman objects to the filing of a memorandum of an agreement for the payment of a lump sum upon the ground that the sum was inadequate, and that the agreement, although signed by him, was so signed under a misrepresentation on the part of the employers, the sheriff's substitute errs in granting a warrant to record the memorandum without inquiry into the adequacy of the amount and the misrepresentation averred. Burns v. Baird [1913] S. C. 358, 50 Scot. L. R. 280, [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 61, 6 B. W. C. C. 362.

Where an employer and the workman have entered into an agreement whereby the employer shall redeem by a lump sum weekly payments of compensation payable to the workman, it is prima facie the duty of the registrar to record a memorandum of the agreement on being satisfied of its genuineness, and if the adequacy of the sum is called in question, the registrar, proceeding under schedule 2, § 9, must inquire whether the sum is adequate. Rex v. Registrar of Bow County Ct. (Div. Ct.) [1914] 3 K. B. (Eng.) 266, [1914] W. N. 223, 83 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1806, 111 L. T. N. S. 277.

The refusal of the county court judge to record an agreement for a lump sum settlement, on the ground of inadequacy, will not bind him to award compensation to the workman on his subsequent application for compensation, where the judge finds that the incapacity is no longer due to the accident. Beech v. Bradford Corp. (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 236.

In Johnson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. (1912) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 322, the court of appeals sustained the ruling of the county court judge that the sum of £10 is not an adequate settlement of a claim for £180, although the employer denied all liability under the act.

An order approving a compromise where there are minor children should not be "by consent," but "in the opinion of the court, the term being for the benefit of the in

The death of either party to a valid agreement for the redemption of weekly payments by a lump sum does not prevent the subsequent registration of such agreement, so as to make it enforceable as a county court judgment under schedule II. ¶ 9.63

It has been held, in construing ¶ 4 of rule 56a of the Rules of 1908, that if someone on behalf of infant dependents agreed, so far as he could, to the payment of a certain sum into court, and the registrar was satisfied with the amount and signed the receipt, the agreement was binding upon the infant.64

There is nothing in the act to prevent fant." Coulson v. Worshipful Company of Drapers (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 136. 61 Where the registrar has refused to register an agreement between the employer and the workman for substitution of a lump sum for weekly payments, and the matter has been referred to the judge under sched. II., ¶ 9 (d), all the latter can do is to decide whether the agreement ought or ought not to be registered. Mortimer v. Secretan [1909] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 77, 78 L. J. K. B. N. S. 521, 100 L. T. N. S. 721. The registrar of the court refused to register the agreement upon the ground that the lump sum was inadequate, and referred the matter to the county court judge, who found it inadequate and assessed the amount to be paid at the sum which admittedly would be payable if it were to be computed under schedule I. ¶ 17 of the act; but the court of appeal held that the county court judge had exceeded his authority.

In passing upon an agreement to pay and accept a lump sum, it is a misdirection for the county court judge to treat the maximum weekly payment which the workman was receiving as a permanent payment which the employer was required to pay. O'Neill v. Anglo-American Oil Co. (1909) 2 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 434.

The sheriff's substitute, to whom the adequacy of an agreement to receive weekly payments by a lump sum had been referred by a sheriff's clerk, has no power to require the workman to consign the amount of the lump sum, less the sum which would be the amount of compensation prima facie due to the workman in the event of the registration of the memorandum being refused. M'Vie v. Taylor (1914) 2 Scot. L. T. 342, 51 Scot. L. R. 435, 7 B. W. C. C. 891.

62 Lawrie v. Brown [1908] S. C. (Scot.)

705.

63 Price v. Westminister Brymbo Coal & Coke Co. [1915] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 128, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 746, 112 L. T. N. S. 905, 31 Times L. R. 219, [1915] W. N. 69, 59 Sol. Jo. 301, 8 B. W. C. C. 257. In this case the workman, after agreeing upon the lump sum, died, and his personal representative sought to enforce the agreement.

64 Rhodes v. Soothill Wood Colliery Co.

extends to a case where a workman had been killed, and there was conflicting medical evidence as to the cause of the death.74 An agreement in advance to submit any dispute to the decision of a medical referee is void.75

Notwithstanding a reference to the medical referee, the county judge should form an independent judgment, and is not bound by the referee's report.76

The report of a medical referee appointed by an arbitrator is intended for the use of the arbitrator only; but it is in his discretion to allow respondents to see the report and make a copy of it.77

5

A medical referee appointed under should not sit with the county court judge as assessor on an issue upon which he has already given an opinion as medical referee.78

(2) Where any such employer agrees with a contractor for the execution by or under that contractor of any work in agriculture, § 4 of the workmen's compensation act 1897 shall apply in respect to any workmen employed in such work as if that employer were an undertaker within the meaning of that act. Provided, that, where the contractor provides and uses machinery driven by mechanical power, for the purpose of threshing, ploughing, or other agricultural work, he, and he alone, shall be liable under this act to pay compensation to any workman employed by him on such work.

(3) Where any workman is employed by the same employer mainly in agricultural, but partly or occasionally in other, work, this act shall apply also to the employment of the workman in such other work.

only.

Where, under schedule II. (17), the case is remitted to the sheriff's substitute to find whether the notice of the accident was given as soon as practicable, the arbitrator may take further proof, and may examine the doctor who attended the applicant during the illness following the accident.79

Under the act of 1897, the decision of either division of the court of session was final and no appeal lies to the House of Lords; 80 but, under the express terms of the act of 1906, schedule II. ¶ 17, such an appeal does lie.

XXII. Act of 1900.

a. Text of the act.

Section 1.-(1) From and after the commencement of this act, the workmen's compensation act 1897 shall apply to the employment of workmen in agriculture by any employer who habitually employs one or more workmen in such employment.

74 Carolan v. Harrington [1911] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 733, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1153, 105 L. T. N. S. 271, 27 Times L. R. 486, 4 B. W. C. C. 253.

75 A clause in an agreement between the employer and the workman providing that if the workman refuse to submit himself to a medical referee on any questions subsequently arising as to his condition or fitness to work, he would forfeit all further claim to compensation, is void. British & S. A. Steam Nav. Co. v. Neil (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 413.

76 Quinn v. Flynn (1910) 44 Ir. Law Times, 183, 3 B. W. C. C. 594; Jackson v. Scotstoun Estate Co. [1911] S. C. 564, 48

land for any purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit and vegetables.

Section 2. This act may be cited as the workmen's compensation act 1900, and shall be read as one with the workmen's compensation act 1897, and that act and this act may be cited together as the workmen's compensation acts 1897 and 1900.

Section 3. This act shall come into operation on the 1st day of July, 1901. This statute is supplanted by the general act of 1906.

b. Effect of these provisions.

The act of 1900 had received but little attention from the courts before it was repealed by the act of 1906.

Threshing was held to be agricultural work within the meaning of this act.81 So, a workman, although a proportion of his time acting as a game keeper, might be found to be engaged in agricultural employment within the meaning of the Scot. L. R. 440, 4 B. W. C. C. 381; Dowds v. Bennie (1902) 5 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th series (Scot.) 268.

77 Bowden v. Barrow Bros. (1901; C. C.) 3 W. C. C. (Eng.) 215.

78 Wallis v. Soutter [1915] W. N. (Eng.) 68, 59 Sol. Jo. 285, 8 B. W. C. C. 130.

79 Park v. Coltness Iron Co. (1913) 50 Scot. L. R. 926, 2 Scot. L. T. 232, 6 B. W. C. C. 892.

80 Osborne v. Barclay [1901] A. C. (Eng.) 269, 85 L. T. N. S. 286.

81 Proctor v. Cumisky (1904) 6 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th series, 832, 41 Scot. L. R. 636, 12 Scot. L. T. 172.