Miguel Appuhamy v. Appuhamy.
the past, but what were the future probabilities that the deceased wouldresume such payments? The only evidence on this point is that thedeceased had written a letter to his sister and aunt saying he was comingin the New Year with money. There was no evidence that he was goingto give such money to his sister or to resume payments to her. I do notthink this evidence is sufficient to bring the case within the principles laiddown by Lord Justice Sankey in the case above referred to. It shouldbe noted that in Lee v. George Munro (supra) the facts were very different.It was a claim by a widow and the deceased workman had supported hiswife regularly and continuously, but at the time when he met with hisaccident, he was only earning a very small amount, which did not permitof his supporting his wife. In the other case referred to by the Com-missioner, namely, Robertson v. Hal Brothers Steamship Co.1, the factsalso are very different to those in this case. In that case a father claimedto be a dependant of his son. The son had for some four years contributedtowards his father’s upkeep, but did not during the last two or threemonths before his death make any contribution, but during such time hewas mostly out of England. It was held that there was sufficient evidenceto find that the father was in fact a dependant.
In this case, as stated before, I do not think there was sufficient evidencebefore the Commissioner to justify his finding. The appeal is accordinglyallowed and the award in favour of the applicant set aside.
Appeal allowed.