TORN TROUSERS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 222, 13 June 1919, Page 7

TORN TROUSERS

A NAIL IN'A PACKING CASE SHEEPFARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES . A case of an unusual nature was heard by Mt.,F. V. Frazor, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Charles W. • Wilson,- sheepfarmer, of Wangaiiui, sued LindSnys,-Ltd., boot importers, of Wellington, for. the sum of illft for- damage done lb' a pail' of trousers; .Mr: H. Buddie appeared for plaintiff, alid Sir. J. A. Tripe lor the defendant company." • 1 •: Plaintiff was coming down Woodward Street, in company with Mr. K. Duncan, oil the morning of March 20 last, wlien his trousers. were torn by n hail which w'as .-projecting front a packing-case' belonging- to -.the defendant company, and which was standing on the pavement. -.Tho case for the plaintiff was that the defendant company should not have left the case on; the pavement in a position and condition-likely to catise damage to passers-by... . .

Plaintiff said. that" after his trousers were torn lie/went shop, and asked. that the. to the garment should be made good. The man whom he' npproached sneered at the suggestion! so witness - decided to take legal fiction. ' ■'. ' • . ;.

i In reply to Mn Tripe, plaiiltiff said that when he walked up Woodward Street- t6'>M'it. ! -A. E. Whyte's'offlce, where he had to do some business, he did not remember whether 'he Walked alongside of Mr. Duncan,, or whether they went •:iii.single file. .He did not notice .-the case standing-on the pavement then.' • Mr. Tripe; When- did -you buy that suit?—"At the end of last;6enson. .It cost me' ..£G or £!,

• Where, has'v the suit been-lyinfc ; since March 20?—" At the Wellesley Club.'-' Do -you know whether the. rats, have been 'playing with it?—"l did not ask the steward."

Do .you' seriously value a suit at .£lO 'which cost you only.. ,£6 or Jfi ?—"I. have not worn it very'miiph."

How' many suits do you have a year, .Mr. :Wilwn?A"Som6>inics four, or five, sometimes six!"

Kenneth Douglas Duncan, merchant, of Wellington', .''also'jfave evidence for the plaintiff.' He saul that when nlaintiff arid he walked up' Woodward Street together, he did not renlomber seeing ■the ctfse. ■''

.Tames Allen; tailor in the' employ ■of J. A..Doherty, tailor, said that the.present value of the plaintiff's suit,-if- flew. •iwouM: be '.£lO 10a. Last March •it would-cost-about ,£8 Bs. As the result of tho 'damage the sui'jt was valueless, except for, the garden. He wSuld not undertake to patch, the suit, so that it oould bo worn by a business man, : nnd it would bo impossible to obtain another .length.; of cloth from which to make-a pair of trousers to match the r.est of-tho'.6uit. " . •

.' Mr. Tripe'considered that.it was quite proper aiid usupl to unpack-goods in the street. .It, was an established custom, and the' defendants were: acting in quite a' legitimate manner in unpacking tho case in', Woodward Street, which Was always difficult to negotiate. "The case is'rather u stornt in a teacup than a tear in the trousers," remarked Mr. Tripe. "I expected tho trousers to be edged with gold,, but they seeni to be an ordinary pair. I don't see where the JlO coines in." The accident was orto .which might happen .anywhere, and which should be taken lying down.

'...Arthur. Lindsay-said lhat he saw plain-, tiff and" Mr. Duncan passing the shop and : guing up' Woodward Street. The >case was then- on the' footpath, and plaintiff and Mr. Duncan, were in single 'file. A few minutes later they came down tho street again. Witness said "tliat on the occasion in question he was 'following the same course with regard to the, unpacking of goods as he had practised for the last .thirty years. During that time no. accident had happened. ,The case was not opened at-the time, 'and nothing .'had •' been taken out' Of it; sit' Could,o £ it' Could, not have been a nail which tore plaintiff's'trousers'. 1 • Ilis Worship said that the defendant company'had not committed a breach of the by-laws in leaving the packing-casfc standing in the street. Whether tho case. was open or. not, some work had been done' on it. He could not ignore the evidence thiit the trousers hud' been torn bv something sharp. . In fact, 'ths trousers bore eloquent testimony to. having. been damaged by a projection of dome sort or other. There was iio evidence'that .plaintiff blundered into the case, and it was not likely that he would bavo noticed the nail. If he had not seen the nail he could not be guiltj of contributory negligence. Judgment would be'given for plaintiff for with costs, the suit to/be given to the defendants'. \ ' '