BOOT FACTORY OPERATIVES.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20427, 23 December 1931, Page 10

BOOT FACTORY OPERATIVES.

* MR DUCKWORTH DENIES A STATEMENT. "Whatever We may think of the Court's decision, we will certainly not go to tho extent of taking any such action as has been suggested by one manufacturer," said Mr H. B. Duckworth, of the boot manufacturing firm of Duckworth,.Turner, and Co., Ltd., yesterday, in commenting upon the suggestion that local firms might find it cheaper to import skilled workers from England than to train female assistant's in their own factories. Mr Duckworth said that he desired to dissociate himocilf and his firm from this suggestion. "We will be happy to go on training girls in our own factory, and cannot conceive any circumstances which would lead us to follow any othfer course. I think you may take it that my opinion is shared by most of the boot manufacturers in the Cit.v," said Mr Duckworth. He said that the statement, as published in Tab PitESa yesterday morning, had caused a> little stir of uneasiness among the manufacturers and their employees, and ho wished to make it clear that so far as Duckworth, Turner, and Co., Ltd., we.re concerned, no such action was contemplated.

A decision that an hotelkcepei- was liable for loss of goods belonging to his guest was mado by Mr W. R. McKean, S.M, in the Magistrate's Cpurt, at Auckland. Tho question arose in a case in which Ben Lecn claimed damages for W. J. Hickfcy, licensee of the Tliistlo Hotel, for clothing stolen from his bedroom while ho was a guest at defendant's hotel last August. In giving judgment for plaintiff, the Magistrate said the liability of an hotelkeeper for goods belonging to his guest was founded upon custom and was limited by law to £3O, except in certain cases.-. An hotellceeper was, in fact, an insurer of the goods of his guest, and if the goods were stolen he was chargeable, even though there be no negligence on his part. Where the action of a guest had been so negligent as to induce loss, tho hotelkeeper was not liable. All that was alleged against plaintiff in the case under review was that he did not lock the door of his room. Plaintiff said he could not do so because he was not supplied with a key, although he asked for one. ■ "It has, however, been held in more than one case that an omission to lock the door of a room is not negligence and will not deprive the guest of his right to recover," said Mr McKean. "As there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which induced the loss, he is entitled to recover the amount claimed."