TORE HIS TROUSERS

Hokitika Guardian, 27 July 1920, Page 3

TORE HIS TROUSERS

A RESTAURANT COMEDY. A pair of trousers, a projecting pail, a cup of tea anti an unstable elmir were the elements in u comedy in the Empire Cato on May Ist, the facts of which were aired before Mr. A’. O .Day, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court Christchurch, recently. Th<t ease was one in which Charles Pearce, contractor, of Cliristchurh, (Mr Aniodco), proceeded against G. A. Honvell, proprietor qf the Empire Cafe (Mr Malloy), (-turning £T3 13s damages in respect of a suit of clothes damaged through alleged negligence on the part of tlie defendant; or his servants. Plaintiff stated that on May Ist lie went, into defendant's restaurant for a pieal. While sitting there on a chair he fel( something gripping his trousers. He was about to investigate when the chair collapsed. Subsequently one-of the waitresses came along, “with her hands full,” and tipped a cup of tea over him. Witness alleged 'ip his statement of claim that as a result of these occurrences his trousers were rendered unserviceable, and his suit made, unfit for use. John Patterson .a tailor, gave evidence as to the original value of the suit, Minnie •Allen, a waitress at defendant’s restaurant, stated that on the day of tlie occurrences wli'p-li were tinsubject of the action the plaintiff came intfj the restaurant and asked for oysters. Witness was some time in bringing them, and plaintiff leaned back in his chair calling out to her to hurry lip. He then fell right over, and everyone commenced to laugh. Shortly after witness brought plaintiff a cup of tea. She put it down beside liini, and Inknocked tlie saucer, tbe. tea going “fair into bis la.p.” Defendant said he did not see the accident. \Vheu the plaintiff came Into hjsi office to complain about tin- occurrence lie was in a very excited condition. Witness offered to have tlie suit cleaned and repaired. Subsequently plaintiff came back and asked witness to pay half the value of the suit. When witness declined to do this plaintiff said In-, would have all or nothing, and went away. Witness did not see him again till the present proceeding were commenced. Thf* Mag istrnte sard that a proprietor of a restaurant presumably guaranteed the stability of his <.)iairs. For any mishap through weakness of a chair he was responsible. As regards the shilling of the tea, lie would hold that that was an unavoidable accident, for wliic-h the defendant was not Mable. After hearing evidence as to the cost of effecting repairs to plaintiff’s trousers, the Magistrate entered judgment against the defendant for 30s; with costs.