THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16149, 1 March 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL. (Bolore Mr T. A. IS. Bailey, S.M.) DRUXKKX.Mv^. A fir.-t offendoif was lined ss. ('TVII; BUSINESS. In the following cases judgment was given for plaintiff, by default:—lnternational Harvester Co.. Ltd. v. George Bennett, £8 17s 8d: Reid and Gray, Ltd. v. Richard. M. Taiaroa. £1 6s; Massey, Harris C 0.,, Ltd. v. AN illiam Craig, costs: same v. Joe Ravlich, £21 5s 7d ; Joseph Gilmore v. John Woir, £6 12s Od; Kinsey and Co.. Ltd. v. W. H. Brewer, £101 6s Gd: L. Beach v. K. Ellis. £4 12s 10s; F. H. Steel v. S W. Shockman, £7 10s Id: A. J. "White, Ltd. v. Horace J. Moon, £2 0s sd. COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER'S CLAIM. NO CAUSE OF ACTION l'Oll DAMAGES. '"The claim for damages is quite misconceived. and quite without merit-. 1 ' said his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court at Wellington on Wednesday, in delivering judgment in the ease of Percy George Waller, commercial traveller, Christchurch, against, Hamilton Gilmer and others, interested as owners of the Hotel Trocaredo, a private hotel on Lambton Quay. ' Plaintiff claimed £75 general damages and £68 7s 6d special damages because, as he .set out in his statement of claim, he was, with the knowledge of plaintiffs or their servants, locked up and Betained in a room at the hotel for a considerable time, without means of egress or escape. He blamed a defective lo?k. He stated, further, that by reason of the circumstances referred "to, he suffered "great pain of body and mind," and was, moreover, prevented from attending to important business, and from fulfilling engagements. This inconveneince, lie stated in evidence, put him to considerable expense. His sen-ices were' required on the wharf early in the morning, and bocause he was not able to be present a large quantity of scrap iron, iu which material lie was a dealer, missel shipment. and,he was detained in Wellington for more than a fortnight. On the other hand, the defendants denied that; to their knowledge, the lock of the door was defective, and stated that all reasonable steps were taken to secure the prompt release of the plaintiff from the room. The defendants further asserted thnt the plaintiff could have obtained egress from the Toom either through the window or through the fanlight over the dror. With the latter contention of the defendants' his Honour agreed (says the "Post's" report). His Honour "stated that he had inspected the building, anrl was quite satisfied that plaintiff could have escaped by means of the window or by climbing through the fanlight. Certainly, if he had gone thrnigh the window it would have meant a drop of several feet on' to an iron roof, but plaintiff could have used one of the sheets from the bed for the purpose of letting liims-lf down lightly. His Honour preferred to believe the locksmith as to the time the door was eventually opened. The locksmith sa<d it was 25 minutes to 9 o'clock, whereas plaintiff asserted it was a quarter ]->ast 9. Plaintiff had apparently had some breakfast going to the wharf. More than that, it was plain from the locksmith's evidence that plaintiff had caused his own detention bv damaging the look when he used it the night before. His Honour concluded by saying that there was no possible c a use of action. The claim for damages was misconceived and quite without merit. Judgment -was accordingly entered for defendant, with costs according to scale, -witnesses' expenses, and disbursements. At the hearing Mr C. W. Nielson appeared for -the plaintiff and Mr A. W. Blair for defendant. ■ In the Melbourne courts lately a number of dealers in'fruit have been fined for practising deception on the public by "topping." Police evidence showed that the defendants, in dressing their windows or stalls, had placed all large tomatoes within the public view, while those at the back, which were actually served to customers, were undersized and, in some instances, unsound. Under the South Australian Fruit Act (says the Adelaide "Advertiser") there is no provision for protecting the public against deception of the same kind, and a complaint last year that it occurred more or less in Adelaide resulted in the City Council asking the Government to have legislation framed to deal with the practice of "topping." The request was placed before the Government in June last, and an intimation was received that it would have the consideration of Cabinet. Nothing further was heard until the end of November, when the City Council was notified that no action in the direction of obtaining the desired legislation was possible during the past session of Parliament. It is understood that no further'step has been taken, but a prominent municipalist remarked last week that it was time the matter again had attention. 1