MR HUMPHREYS' WHITE HATAMUSING CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. EXTRAORDINARY "LAWYER'S LETTER.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 264, 16 May 1888, Page 4

MR HUMPHREYS' WHITE HATAMUSING CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. EXTRAORDINARY "LAWYER'S LETTER.

Auckland, May 14. A very amusing case came up for hearing at Ihe R.M. Court this morning, when Dr. Giles occupied the Bench. Mr T. M* , Humphreys, solicitor, claimed £2 12s 6cl J as damages from the Devonport Ferry Company in consequence of his clothing being spoiled by a dischargo of water from the tunnel of the p.s. Alexandra. 3 Mr C. E. Button appeared for the - plain lift and Mr T. Cotter for the defendant f company. In opening the case Mr Button quoted authorities to show that the Company, although not insurers, were liable for damages resulting from negligence. The cases of Redhead v. the Mid land Kail way Company — 2 Law Re ports, Queen's Bench, p 412, and in appeal 4 Law Reports, Queen's Bench, p 379, Smith and Gray and Hattwell v. Crowther, were also quoted from. Thomab Mace Humphreys deposed to - being a solicitor practising in Auckland, j and residing at the North Shore. He travelled by the iJevonport Ferry ComL pany'.s steamers. On the 23rd of April he " was returning to the North Shore by the 5.10. p.m boat Alexandra. He occupied a scat in the centre of the boat. There was no awning over the seat. Just as the boat I 1I 1 left the whait a volume of dirty water nibhed over him. It completely spoiled his hat and overcoat. He had left his hat at the oflicc of the Company, but subsequently found that had been sent to Mr Fen ton to be cleaned. The price of the hat was 5s 6d. He wore it \ cry seldom, as he did not li ke the shape. He now claimed a new hat 5s 6d. His coat also was spoiled. He was told that it could not be cleaned. Mr Enington, the engineer told him that the coat could not bo cleaned. He had paid ,C 2 10s for the coat, but it could not be replaced here under fJS 10s. lie claimed £1 as damages on the coat. Ho applied to the manager of the Company lor compensation. Mr Alison told him that about £180 hod been spent on that boat in trying to pi event that annoyance. By Mr Cotter : Previously to being a solicitor witness had been a clergyman. He had not yet developed into a maiine engineer. Ho had resided about >ix months at the North Shore. He had written to Mr Alison about the matter. Mr Cotter : " Oh, wo will put the letter in. I will just read it.'' "24th April. T. M. Humphreys, 8.A., solicitor. To E. \V. Ali&on, Esq.— Sir, I was, a passenger to the Noith Shore by the 5.10 boat Alexandra yesterday, and just as the boat lett the pier 1 received a volume of diity water upon my white hat and light coloured coat, which rendered me an objector mingled pit) , und 1 grieve to say derision in the eyes ot my many fellow passengers ; particularly — note it well — of the female portion of them. Now, Mr Alison, I am a groat admncr of the ISoith Shore and its ucliveand encigeuc inhabitants, of whom you stand j>ar (.xnlltmt in the foremost rank^ ; but much as I enjoy lixing at the Noith Nhoio, still if your boats are to play fantastic tricks upon your passengers as that to w Inch 1 beg to draw your attention, 1 fear I shall have to seek another, chough a less beauteous abode. Foi the damage done to my white hat 1 must lay upon you for a new one. For the damage done to my coat. I fear you cannot get one like it in Auckland, and theictorc 1 must leave that item to arbitiation. For the damage done to my wounded feelings, for my being subject to the derisive laughter of the charming little deals — both old and young, upon that boat yesterday e\ening, well at present I cannot trustmysclf to send you in a tair claim and 1 think 1 had better leave thai to arbitiatiou also, only I would suggest that the arbitrator tN should in this latter case be chosen trom those who weie on board and who witnessed the scene, and should be confined e\clusi\e)y to the fair sex If jou ao rec to this condition, please let mo knou as soon as possible, and arrangements can be made to hold the couit, and I would suggest thatjjit be held on board the Ospiey, and that the Company should provide a champagne lunch with plenty of sott tack for those whose heads aie too weak for the st longer beverage. Pray accept, dearAlison, assurances of my high consideration. — T. M. HrMVlLKh\s. M This letter convulsed the Court with laughter. Mr Mace Humphreys said he recognised that as his own letter. Mr Alison had promised to reply in the tame stylo. Pro bably at rirst ho did treat the mattei as a joke, but now he did seriously claim damages. He had first asked tor 10& 6d for his hat and £2 2s for his coat, but he had since modeiated his claim. It a\ n& not a question of amount, but simply to settle w hcthor the Company were liable at law. It was simply a friendly action to decide the matter. R. N Hopkins, an artist, deposed to witnessing the occurrence. He saw Mr Humphreys properly sprinkled, and he bolted tor the other side of the deck. Witness was laughing at him like fun. Samuel McCoskrio,an engineeer, deposed that .such an accident would result from the steam condensing in the exhaust pipe, collecting theie, and being forced up the funnel n t the waste cocks if the exhaust pipes wcio not opened. Boilers could be constructed so that this thing could be obviated, but it would require a very large boiler and consume a large amount of coal. l>y Mr Cotter : He believed that a new hull would also bo required to carry the boiler. Tin's concluded the case for the plain till". Mr Cotter moved that the pkuntitl should lie nonsuited on the ground that no evidence had been produced to show the Alexandra wa= the property of the defendaut Company. His Y\ orship overruled this objection. a& the ticket of the Company had been put in c\idence and also the interviews between the plaintiff and the manager of the defendant Company. Mr Cotter then further moved for a, nonsuit on the ground that no negligence on the part ol the defendant company had boon proved in exidenec. Mr McCoskrie's evidence had show n that other boats were running m tho harbour with similar high pressure engines. No authority could be quoted to show that the company were liable for damages resulting from the construction of the machinery and not from negligence. Mr Button argud that if thero was a known defect in the boiler which might be remedied, then it ought to be averted. His Worship decided to nonsuit the plaintift on tho points raised ; £1 Is costs were allowed.

A thrifty anim.il is the snake. He canalways- mako both ends meet. A thing- is never too often repeated which is never sufficiently learned.