MR HUMPHREYS' WHITE HAT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 113, 14 May 1888, Page 8

MR HUMPHREYS' WHITE HAT.

AMUSING CLAIM FOR

DAMAGES.

EXTRAORDINARY «' LAWYER'S "

LETTER

A very amusing case came up for hearing attheß..M. Court this morning, when Dr. Giles occupied the Bench. Mr T. MHumphreys, solicitor, claimed £2 12s 6d as damages from the Devonport Ferry Company in consequence of his clothing being spoiled by a discharge of water from the funnel of the p.s. Alexandra. Mr C. E. Button appeared for the plaintiff and Mr T. Cotter tor the defendant 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 Midland Railway Company—2 Law Reports, Queen's Bench, p 412, and in appeal 4 Law Reports, Queen's Bench, p 37iJ, Smith' and Gray and Hattwell v. Crowther, were also quoted from.

Thomas Mace Humphreys deposed to being a solicitor practising in Auckland, and residing at tho iNorth Shore. He travelled by the Devon port Ferry Company's steamers. On the 23rd of April lie was returning to the North Shore by the 5.10. p.m boat Alexandra. He occupied a seat in the centre o£ the boat. There was no awning over the seat. Just as the boat left the wharf a volume of dirty water rushed over him. It completely spoiled his hat and overcoat. He had left his, hat at the office of the Company, but subsecpicntly found that had been sent to .Mr Fenton to bee-leaned. The price of the hat was 5s 6d. Jrte wore it very seldom, as he did not like 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 Errington, the engineer told him that the coat could not be cleaned. He had paid £2 10s for the coat, but it could not be replaced here under £5 10s. He claimed £1 as damages on the coat. He applied to the manager of the Company for compensation. Mr Alison told him that about £180 hod been spent on that boat in trying to prevent that annoyance.

By Mr Cotter : Previously to being a solicitor witness had been a clergyman. He had not yet developed into a marine engineer. He" had resided about six months at the North Shore. He had written to Mr Alison about the matter.

Mr Cotter : "Oh, we will put the letter in. I will just read it." "24th April. T. M.Humphreys, 8.A., solicitor. To E. W. Alison, Esq.—Sir, I was a passenger to the North Shore by the 5.10 boat Alexandra yesterday, and just as the boat left the pier I received a volume of dirty water upon my white hat and light coloured coat, which rendered me an object, of mingled pity, and I grieve to say derision in the eyes of my many fellow passengers ; particularly—note it well—of the female portion of them. Now, Mr Alison, I am a great admirer of the North Shore and its active and energetic inhabitants, of whom you stand par excellence in the foremost ranks ; but much as I enjoy living at the North Shore, still if your boats are to play such fantastic tricks upon your passengers as that to which 1 bet: to draw your attention, I fear I shall have to seek another, though a less beauteous abode. For the damage done to my white hat 1 must lay upon you for a new one. For the damage done to my coab, I fear you cannot get one like it in Auckland, and therefore I must leave that item to arbitration. For the damage done to my

wounded feelings, for my being subject to tho derisive laughter of tho charming httlo dears-both old and young, upon that boat yesterday evening, well at present I cannot trustmyself to send you in a fair claim and I think I had better leave thai to arbitration also, only I would suggest that the arbitrators should in this latter case bo chosen from thoso who were on board and who witnessed the scene, and should be confined exclusively to the fair sex. It you ao-ree to this condition, please let me "know as soon us possible, and arrangements can be made to hold the court, and I would suggest thatjp bo held on board the Osprey, and that the Company should provide a champagne lunch with plenty of soft tack for those whose heads are too weak lor the stronger beverage Pray aeoopt, dear Alison, assurances of my high consideration. —T. M. Humphreys." This letter convulsed tho Court with laughter. . Mr Mace Humphreys said ho recognised that as his own letter. Mr Alison had promised to reply in the same style. Probably at first ho did treat the matter as a joke, but now he did seriously claim damagos. Ho had lir.it asked tor 10s 6d for his hat and £2 2s for his coat, but he had since moderated his claim. It was not a question of amount, but simply to settle whether 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 for tho other sido of the deck. Witness was laughing at him like fun. Samuel McCoskrie,an cnginceer, deposed that such an accidont would result from the steam condensing in the exhaust pipe, collecting there, and being forced up tho funnel ol tho waste cocks if the exhaust pipes were not opened. Boilers could be constructed so that this thing could be obviated, but it would require a very largo boiler and consume a large amount of coal. By Mr Cotter : He bolioved that a new hull would also bo required to carry the boiler. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr Cotter moved that tho plaiuti- should he nonsuited on the ground that no evidence had been produced to show tho Alexandra was tho property of tho defendant Company. His Worship overruled this objection, as the ticket of tho Company hud boon put in evidence and also the interviews between the plaintiff and the manager of tho defendant Company. Mr Cotter then further moved for a nonsuit on the ground that no negligence on the part ct the defendant company had been proved in evidence. Mr McC'O-kric's evidence had shown that other boats were running in the harbour with similar high pressure engines. No authority could be quoted to show that the company were liable for damages resulting from tho construction of the machinery and not from negligonce. Mr Button argud that if there was a known defect in the boiler which might be remedied, then it ought to be averten. His Worship decided to nonsuit the plaintiff on the points raised ; £1 Is costs -were allowed.