LOST FUR COAT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 17997, 14 February 1924, Page 2

LOST FUR COAT.

DETAILS OF RECENT JUDGMENT

It was recently announced from Otaki that Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., had given judgment for defendant in the case in which Florence Nellie Burt, pf Wellington, proceeded against the Otaki Maori Racing claiming £IOO for the a fur coat. In view of several recent cases of the same variety in which judgment was given against the racing- clubs, the Otaki decision caused some surprise, but the case proves to bo one that waa, quite apart from the others. In his judgment the Magistrate remarked: — "The plaintiff alleged that the coat was entrusted to the servant or agent of.! the defendants, and was lost or stolen, heing not delivered to the plaintiff. The facts were that the tiff with some friends came up from Wellington to attend the race meeting on September 22nd. She and-her friends enquired for the ladies' dress-ing-room, and were directed by some persons to a room under the grandstand, which was marked 'Ladies,' and was a retiring room; There was ail attendant in charge who, ih answer to a question as to whether they could leav« thair coats there, said 'Yes.' They, were given no tickets, nor did- they hand the coats to the attendant, but, hung them up themselves, and then left the room. The club had provided a proper cloak-room on the course, with an attendant in charge who took any coats when requested, gave ' a check or ticket for them, and hung ttiem'up in a room behind the barrier to which the public had no right of access. The room in which the plajntic left her coat was a room open to any lady who might want to use the Retiring room, and the attendant's duties were to keep the room and conveniences clean and tidy. She had no authority to take charge of any coats of patrons. There is some qonflict as to what was said when the coats were left in the' retiring room, the plaintiff and/her friends stating that they asked the attendant if the coats would be safe, and that slie said 'Yes,' and : tlie attendant stating that she informed the plaintiff and fier friends that they could leave the coats there, but at their own risk. Plaintiff's counsel relies upon the,, case of the Wellington Racing Club v!" Symns, but in my opinion the facts as proved before me do not bring the case within that decision. In tha{ case the coat was left in a recognised cloak-room, with an attendant whose duty it was to receive and take care of tlie coats of patrons,, and who gave a ticket Jyp the owner of the coat and pinned a duplicate on the coat to identify it. Here the coat was left not in the cloak-room provided, but in a ladies' retiring room, open to lacpes generally ana with no means of identifying the owner of the coat. I think the plaintiff's loss was due to tier own negligence. She did not take advantage of the cloak-room provided, but left her coat in a public room."