TORN TROUSERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1919, Page 3

TORN TROUSERS.

A nail in a packing case,

WELLINGTON, June 14. A case of an unusual nature was heard by Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Charles W. Wilson, sheepfanner, of Wanganui, sued Lindsays, Ltd., boot importers, of Wellington, for the sum of £lO for damages done to a pair of trousers. Mr 11. Buddie appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. A. Tripe for the defendant company. Plaintiff was coming down Woodward street, in company with Mr K. Duncan, on the morning of March 20th last, when his trousers were torn by a nail which was projecting from a packing case belonging to the defendant company, and which was standing on the pavement. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant company

should not have left the case on the pavement in a position and condition I likely to cause damage to passers-by.

f Plaintiff ' said that after his trousers were torn he went to Lindsay’s shop, and asked that the damage to the [ garment should be made good. The man whom he approached sneered at the suggestion, so witness decided to | take legal action. James Allen, tailor in the employ of J. A. Doherty, tailor, said that the present value of the plaintiff’s suit, if new, would be £lO 10s. Last March it would cost about £8 Bs. As the result of the damage the suit was valueless except for the garden. He would not undertake to patch the suit, so that it could be worn by a business man, and it would be impossible to obtain another length, of cloth from which to make a pair of trousers to match, the rest of the suit. Mr Tripe considered that it was quite proper and usual to unpack goods in the street. It was an established cus-

tom, and the defendants were acting in quite a legitimate manner in unpacking the case in Woodward Street, which was always difficult to negotiate.

“The ease is rather a storm in a teacup than a tear in the trousers,” remarked Mr. Tripe. “I expected the trousers to be edged with gold, but they seem to be an ordinary pair. I don’t see where the £lO comes in.” The accident was one which might happen anywhere, and which should he taken lying down. Arthur Lindsay said that he saw plaintiff and Mr Duncan passing the shop and going 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 the street again. Witness said that 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, so it could not have been

a nail which tore plaintiff’s trousers. His Worship sad that the defendant company had not committed a breach of the by-laws in leaving the packing case standing in the street. Whether the case was open or not, some work had been done on it. He could not ignore the evidence that the trousers had been torn by something sharp. In fact, the trousers bore eloquent testimony to having been damaged by a projection of some sort or other. There was no evidence that plaintiff blundered into the case, and it was not likely that he would have noticed the nail. If he had not seen the nail he could not, be guilty of contributory neglig-

.gence. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £6, with costs, the suit

to be given to the defendants,