COSTER BALL ECHO

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 84, 6 October 1933, Page 9

COSTER BALL ECHO

CLOAKROOM INCIDENT

CLAIM FOR LOST COAT

ACTION FAILS

Judgment for the defendant, with costs, was given by Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M.j in a reserved decision delivered in the Magistrate's Court this morning in connection with the claim by Dudley Bennett for & 8 Bs, the value of an overcoat alleged to have been lost at the Coster' Ball in the Town Hall on July 28, from Hubert L. Nathan, a sharebroker, the nominal promoter of the ball. Mr.' Stilwell said that the claim was for the cost of a new overcoat deposited for a monetary, consideration with a cloakroom attendant employed by the defendant as the representative of the committee. Ho described the manner in which the defendant's coat was handed in to the cloakroom attendants. The cloakroom was the area customarily allocated by the civic authorities for the purpose, and' was formed by closing a corridor lift 6in wide with a barrier of stacked chairs, at one end and. at the other end using a trestle table Bft long and. from 3ft to 4ft wide. As there were two pillars at the latter end, the trestle completely filled the space. It was hero that the plaintiff and 499 other guests handed over their coats for safe custody to the three attendants. CARNIVAL SPIRIT. There was a very large attendance, and a spirit of carnival prevailed. Guests arrived until 9.30 p.m., and some began to leave from 10 p.m. onwards, so that at 1 a.m., when the ball ended, the number of coats, etc., in custody would be less than 500. (It was suggested by one witness' to be about lbu, and that estimate was not challenged.) When, about 1 a.m., the plaintiff went for his coat he found from flirty to a hundred people in front of him, forming a sort of queue at the trestlo barrier, all impatient and clamouring for attention. Before he got to the barrier itself tho crowd, despite the efforts of the attendants, became unruly and got out of hand. c They either went over the barrier or under it and got among the coats, 'each man seeking his own. As a development from this rush the chair barrier in the rear was pulled down and men were coming and going at both.ends. The duties of tho attendants were rendered impossible of fulfilment. Coats were being picked up and dropped, and the confusion which soon prevailed could easily be imagined. The plaintiff followed the crowd, but claimed. he ; did not find his coat. He complained; further search was made, and his coat had not been found when ho called at the Town Hall next day. ■ ~ MANAGEMENT CRITICISED. The plaintiff's counsel agreed that the structure and. arrangement of the cloakroom were reasonable in the circumstances. He alleged, however, that the management was bad, in that' insufficient attendants were employed to deal expeditiousl.y with the delivery of coats, and that,, when everyone was clamouring for attention one attendant invited a guest to come over tho barrier to find his coat, theroby precipitating a movement by all. Further, that no stops were taken to prevent men from invading the cloakroom. The general proposition of law in bailment for reward, according to Halsbury, was that "where goods delivered to., a bailee for hire are :lost, injured, or destroyed the onus of proof is on the custodian to show- that the injury did hot; happen in consequence >of _ his neglect to-: use such care and diligence as a prudent and careful man would use in relation to his .own proper.ty." ] -THE START Or THE RUSH. ■• Begarding the incidents leading to tho rushing of .the barrier,. Mr. Stilwell was satisfied that the crowd at the trestle barrier were impatient . . . that a gentleman in coster, attire jumped on to"'the ".table "and exhorted the crow* to be patient ... irid despite this^ the crowd got : among' the coats. The: Coster, seeing-the futility'of fur-ther-iremonstrance, got down, and men then jumped over the table> which was ultimately, overturned, and confusion reigned. .. ■: . . ■■■■.' : - :&:: friend of . the - plaintiff had said that before the barrier was rushed he had heard an attendant invite . the owner .of a coat to get over tho barrier and identify his own property, and that a rush had set in by others. There was no corroboration by other witnesses, and all the attendants denied such an invitation at that juncture. The Magistrate; however, believed that an invitation of that nature was extended, but after the crowd had rushed the barriers. ■ SUFFICIENT ATTENDANTS. Regarding the number of attendants, Mr. Stilwell confessed that ho had difficulty .in envisaging eight men in the .corridor, and thought that the number employed was- reasonable in the circumstances. As to whether proper care was taken, each of the attendants was an experienced man, and there was no suggestion that they did not, at any rate until the barriers were rushed, safeguard the propety . under their care. The only disadvantage - of under-staffing would' be delay in. delivery—annoying, perhaps, but definitely not evidence in itself of negligence. , The loss of the- coat, if there was such a,loss, was in. Mr. Stilwell's opinion due, not to any want, of care but to the unseemly behaviour of the guests who. made it impossible for the attendants to function. "AN UNSEEMLY SCRAMBLE." The plaintiff's counsel had suggested that the defendant 6hould have arranged for a constable or other person to regulate and restrain the activities of those requiring their coats. "In my view," said Mr. Stilwell, "a committee after making reasonably efficient arrangements to deal with a normal carnival throng cannot »be held blameworthy for failing to contemplate extreme misbehaviour, by a. section, of their gues/'s. ... I dp not think there was a duty on the promoters to see that an official should be there to restrain such an unseemly scramble as appears to have taken place." Normal restrained behaviour was a reasonable expectation. ' ... Regarding the general defence set up, Mr. Stilwell was satisfied that the defendant did exercise such care and diligence as a prudent and careful man would use in the circumstances, and therefore the'plaintiff's claim must fail.' There were other circumstances disentitling, the-plaintiff to recover. After the barriers were rushed a friettd had handed' the plaintiff a dark coat, which- he took. • There was clear evidence that the plaintiff asked his friend to hold his coat while he dealt with a person who-had intervened. Though the plaintiff: claimed ho had lost his coatf Mr. Stilwell had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did receive a coat, and that it was a reasonable inference that it was his coat. A. Bradshaw (Stamp Duties Department) has notified the sole selector (Mr. T. S. Williams) of his inability to take part in the table tennis match against Wauganui on Saturday night, and R. Fry (Government Insurance Department) has been choseri iirhis-place. In the team as previously announced an error occurred, the name of Mrs. Williams (Wellington Club) being inserted instead of the name Miss Williams (Wellington Club),