LOST LUGGAGE

Hokitika Guardian, 4 November 1927, Page 1

LOST LUGGAGE

CAH TEUTON, October ill

Tn the Magistrate's Court. Amy .Jeffry proceeded against J. S. Cliichton, service ear proprietor. claiming £BS 2 S fid., the value of a.vsuit-ca.se and its contents, which it was stated wore lost. Plaintiff stated that on Sepl'emher 3 she was a passenger from Carterton to Wellington in a service car owned and driven hv defendant. Be fore entering the ear she handed defendant her suit-case, and on arrival at her destination at Wellington it could not he found. Defendant admitted that he was responsible, and the Carterton booking office was communicated with immediately to aseertain whether it had been left on the footpath. The loss was reported to the police and advertised, but the case had -not been found The defendant stated that the hag was not handed to him. hut was placed on the footpath alongside the ear, at his request. He attended to two passengers alighting, went over to the booking office, and the hag was not picked up. He had admitted that he had a moral obligation in the matter, and had made an offer. A.s. however, the offer had been declined, and the claim for lost articles was. ill his opinion excessive, and further no charge was made for carrying luggage, he had decided to defend the claim, in order to ascertain the legal position. The Magistrate, in giving judgment for £lO, with costs 9s. said that the admission made to the police "hen making inquiries showed defendant to be responsible. The contention that the fare was for the passenger and nothing for luggage could not lie accepted. If that distinction was made service cars would find themselves in competition with the railways, whose fare included passenger and luggage,