Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LOST LUGGAGE

LIABILITY OF HOTEL LICENSEE. Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. -Riddell, S.M.. yesterday in the case Oi T. ,T. \V. Evans'(Mr. T. Young) against Annio Sullivan (Mr. H. P. O'Leary), licensee of the l'ier Hotel, o claim for .£95 175., the value of certain luggage and contents belonging to plaintiff stolen from defendant's hotel, while plaintiff was n .guest at' the .hotel. Oil May 19 the lilaihtiff and two friends went to the I'ier Hotel and were all accommodated iii room 16.. Tho two friends left the hotel the n6xt day, and plaintiff , remained solo occupant for a' day or two, when two seafaring men wefe put into tho room with hi in. They stayed onn night and left without.lanythinj of note happening. The plaintiff continued in occupation unti'- -May 24, andVn the morning of that day- loft the hotel to attend to business. On returning to the hotel at 4.30 p.m. ho found that the greater part of his baggage, together with an overcoat and suit of clothes, had disappeared. It was admitted that the plaintiff was a, guest at the hotcL on the date when his goods woro stolen, and that ho did not deposit ilfem expressly for safe custody with the licensee. The Magistrate in his judgment said: "Tho onus of proving neglcct on tho p!Tt of tho defendant lies on tho plaintiff, and in the present ease he says (hat the act of putting three persons in one room, tho failure to provide a key, and allowing tho plaintiff's goods to be removed from the hotel without authority, are acts showing neglect on tho part, of the licensee. Ho did not aslc for a, key, or require tho defendant to tako chargo of his valuables. The defendant says that tho plaintiff' might hnvo had a koy had ho wanted «no, .and under tho . circumstances detailed I doubt very much if tho facts Tirnrn which tho plaintiff relics prove nejligencd on the part of tho licensee." % Tho Magistrate h<?ld that tho plaintiff had not proved the defendant's liability for more than the amount fixed by flho Btatnte. Judgment was therefore given for plaintiff tor J!M. and costs X 7 Is.

A priceless pearl Is my sunehino girl, Always so: bright and Kay; Blnttine and cllnginc and bringing I laujh to tho dullest day. Tho' Bhe's only three, she's the world, to Without her I could not endure. And the health of my treasure I owe wttfiout measure, To Woods' Great Peppermint Cure. ' —Adyt. .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19201214.2.85

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
420

LOST LUGGAGE Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 9

LOST LUGGAGE Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 68, 14 December 1920, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert