A STOLEN SUIT CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 September 1924, Page 1

A STOLEN SUIT CASE.

CLAIM KOI! DAM A (IKS KAILS. WELLINGTON, Sept. 11. A bailee's responsibility lor the safe custody of goods was discussed l>,v Air \V. (I. Riddell, S.AL, in the course of a reserved decision delivered in the Magistrate's Court on Saturday. I'laintilfs were l\‘rev E. L. Hlgee, a retired major in .Mis Majesty’s Forces, and his wife, Elizabeth Hlgee. who sought to recover tIGO 17s fid from the I’alace Company. Ltd. (Hotel Windsor), as the value of a suit-case and contents, which were entrusted to defendant company, who it was alleged, had failed to lock up the goods as agreed, and negligently permittei them to be stolen. His Worship remarked that where goods were given into the custody of a person and accepted by him as bailee and were lost while in that custody, the onus lay on him to show circumstances negativing negligence 1111 |s part. In every case it was for the Court to decide whether there was any evidence of breach ol duty on the part of tin- bailee, and if there were such evidence, the Court, after eonsidei ing all the fin um-tam es ~f (he case, the nature, portahdil v. value, and chat. etc! ul the ihattcl. not l dr cide whether suelt evidence was siillieiont to justify the charge of negligence. “When one considers the size and weight of plaintilfs suit-ease.” proceeded the Magistrate .“and the place where ii was deposited by the porter, as well its the manlier of ils disappearance, the hiss seems to he one due to tlie operations ol a clever hotel thirl', who seized the opportunity of making oil' with plninlills goods during the temporary absence of the porter. In such a ease the ontls is oil defendant to show that in the circumstances reasonable care was exercised bv bis servant, in respect of the sale custody of the goods, and taking all the circumstances into consideration. I do not think that gross- negligence litis horn proved, or even suelt 11 ccjig 1 ‘ ll ,c as tn make defendant liable for the damages claimed.” .lodgment, was accordingly entered fur defendant, with counsel's fee. IA 7s. At the hearing, Mr D. I!. Hoggnnl appeared for plaintilfs, and Mill. K. O'Leary for defendant company.