MISSING SUIT CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 282, 27 November 1919, Page 5

MISSING SUIT CASE.

I HOTELKEEPER HELD LIABLE. HAS TO PAY £30. An important decision was Riven by 3lr. J. W. Poynton, S.M.. this morning at the Magistrate's Court in relation to an Uotelkeepur"s liability for a missing suit wse- The plaintiff was Mrs. Ruby Caiman, of Wanganui (Dr. 11. Dean i Bamford, instructed by Messrs. Karl. i Kent, and Massey). who sued George I Heale, proprietor of the Albeit Hotel (Mr. R. M. McVeagh) for the value of a suit case and contents placed on a | settee and which was taken by some person or persons unknown. The amount asked for was £S3 17/0. The facts were that plaintiff arrived by the morning train from Waikato, left her luggage at the railway station, went to the Albert Hotel, and "asked the lady clerk for a room. She was informed there was not a room, but there would likely be oue during the morning. The plaintiff then went to the station and returned with her suit cuse. As the room was not then vacant, she left the suit lease on a settee in the hall in front of the office. Plaintiff and a friend alleged the clerk was asked if it would be all right there, and she nodded her head in confirmation. That was, however, denied by the clerk. The suit case disappeared, and had not «ince been seen. j -Mr. L'oynton said a hotelkeeper was [ liable for goods lost from his hotel if the I property of his guests. He was like :i I carrier, an insurer of the goods entrusted Jto him in the course of his business. If I the goods were stolen or lost he must ! recompense his guest. It was his busiI ness to look after and see that his juest j did not lose his goods. If it were other- ! wise there would he a great temptation J for hotelkeepers and carriers, or their J servants, to collude with thieves, as wa« ■ done in countries where there was no ! proper system of law. That liability j was, however, limited to £30, unless the j goods were lost, stolen, or injured through the wilful ait, default, or neglect of the innkeeper, or where such I goods were deposited with him expressly for .safe custody. His Worship said the question involved were: (L) Was plaintiff a guest of defendant when the theft of her box from the hotel took place? I {2) \\ as her property deposited e.\piyesly for safe custody with him within 'the meaning of section 174 of Licensing I Act, 190 S. His Worship held that it was • not necessary that any particular room : should be allotted to a person to bring j about the relation of host and guest. The j intention must be sought. An agreement. ] between the two minds was sufficient. Ift was fully understood between both I parties that plaintiff was a guest of the I hotel when she went to the railway j station for her box. Jt did not need her jto partake of a meal or occupy a bed or j particular room in order to complete the contract. She was charged as a guest from that morning to the time of her departure a few days later. Mr. Poynj ton said tin: plneing of the box on the I settee, and asking the clerk if it were J safe there, constituted a depositing of it, , j "expressly for safe custody."' There was j a weighty authority to show that it required morn than that to make the liaj bilit. yunlimited. His Worship said in I his opinion the loss must be eonfied to £30 as fixed by statute. Tf it was sought jto increase the responsibility beyond j that sum something more must be done I than in the case in question, where ; plaintiff siinpl yasked a servant if the j case where it then was would be safe. jAs far as she knew it was i-o: no goods !to her knowledge had been taken from j there before. Nothing was said about i the box containing articles of jewellery I and other goods to the value of £85 17/ G. j Mr. Poynton mentioned that under the Act an innkeeper refusing to keep for l safe custody goods o fhis guest or lodger jis not entitled to the benefit of the pro- ! visions limiting the los sto £30, but a i refusal implied a previous request to i take care of them, and there certainly J was no such request in this case. His I Worship found on the evidence that j there wan no proof of any deposit exj pressly for pafe custody, or of any wilful ; act of default, of the innkeeper having ! caused the loss of plaintifTs goods. I Judgment went for the plaintiff for £30