WITHOUT MERIT

Evening Post, Volume XCV, Issue 50, 27 February 1918, Page 8

WITHOUT MERIT

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER'S CLAIM. ■; NO CAUSE OF ACTION FO*R . DAMAGES. -"The claim for damages is quite misconceived, and quite without merit," said his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stoat) to-day, in delivering judgment in the case of Percy George Wai- ■ ler,^ commercial traveller, Christehurch, „; against Hamilton: Gilmer-and others; in* ' ■'. ts'rested us owners of the . Hotel Trocadero, a private hotel on Lambton-qu&'y. Plaintiff claimed £75 general damages and £63 7s 6d special damages because, as he set out in. his statement of claim, he was, with the knowledge of plaintiffs or their servants, locked up and ,-■■ detained in a room at the hotel for a .'.-. considerable time, without means of egress or escape. Hb blamed a defective lock. He stated, further, that by reason of the circumstance referred to, he . suffered "great pain of body and mind,:". : and was, moreover, prevented from attending to important business, and from fulfilling engagements. This inconveni- „ ence, he stated in evidence, put him to considerable expense. His services were required on the wharf early in the morning, and because he was not able to be present a large quantity of scrap iron, in which material he was a dealer, ; , missed shipment, and was detained in Wellington for more than a fortnight. On the other hand, the defendants denied that, to their knowledge, the lock of the door was defective, and stated • that all reasonable step's were taken to secure the prompt release of the plain- :■ tiff from the room. The defendants fur- ' ther asserted that the plaintiff could have obtained egress from the room either through the' window or through ■ the fanlight over the door. With the latter contention of the defendant's his Honour agreed. His ; r Honour stated that he had inspected the : ■ building, and was quite satisfied that .; plaintiff could have escaped by means of . the window or by climbing through the ' ". fan-light.' Certainly, if he had gone I- ■; through the window it would have meant . a 'drop of 6everal feet on to an ironi, ;" roof, but plaintiff could have used one - of the sheets from the bed for the pur- ; pose of letting himself down ughtly. . Hi 6 Honour preferred to believe the 'locksmith as to the time the door was :, eventually opened. . The locksmith said it was 25 minutes to 9 o'clock, whereas plaintiff asserted it was a quarter past 9. Plaintiff had apparently had some ■ breakfast before going to the wharf. ■■■ More than that, it was .plain from the „-- locksmith's, evidence that plaintiff had . caused his own detention by damaging ; . the lock when he used it the night be- „: .■ fore. Hie Honour concluded by saying > that there was no possible cause of action. The claim for damages was mis- .' !: conceived and quite without merit. Judgment was accordingly; entered for '. defendant, with costs according to scale, : witnesses' expenses, and disbursements. , At the hearing Mr. C..W. Nielson ap- : >: peared for the plaintiff and Mr. A. W. ..;" Blair for defendant.