CLOAK ROOM RESPONSIBILITY

Evening Star, Issue 18281, 22 May 1923, Page 4

CLOAK ROOM RESPONSIBILITY

CASE AGAINST TROTTING CLUB,

A caso of interest was board before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in tho Magistrate's Court to-day, in which Cyril Plato claimed from Luke Clyde Hazlett, Thomas Elliott, and Burrows Stokes Irwin, the trustees of the forbnry Park Trotting Club, and on behalf of all others, the president, stewards, and members of the club, tho sum of £8 4s. the damages sustained by him by reason of tho defendants not safely keeping and taking care of an overcoat placed in the care of the defendants by tho plaintiff on February 3, 1923, upOn their promise to safely keep and take caro of the overcoat, and to ro-deliver it to tho plaintiff on request, and which overcoat the defendants failed to produce. Mr Hay dre.w the magistrate’s attention to tho fact that the wrong defendants were named on the summons, and that members of the committee should have been cited instead of the trustees.

Tho Magistrate considered the position, and after deliberation suggested that two members of the club be named as defendants. Mr Hay mentioned Mr T. Elliott and Mr B. S. Irwin, and counsel for plaintiff agreed to alter the summons accordingly.

Mr Alloo said that the claim was for loss of an overcoat which was placed in the clonk room at the Forbury Paik racing grounds on Saturday, February 3. About noon on the day in question plaintiff had placed his overcoat in the cloak room, giving it to the attendant, and receiving a check ticket in return. There was no notice in the room or on tho ticket relating to articles left in tho room. As plaintiff wanted to got homo early ho left tho course without obtaining his coat. The mooting was a two-day mooting, and as ho was attending again on Monday ho thought ho would call for it then. On Monday plaintiff presented his chock to tho same attendant, but tho coat could not bo found. The attendant told plaintiff that be bad waited a reasonable time after the races on the Saturday, then removed all tho coats which were left in tho cloak room to the office in the stewards’ stand. Tho attendant did not know how many coals there were. Conn so] submitted that as the plaintiff had paid 6d for tho custody of tho coat, and that there were no notices in the cloak room or on tho ticket relating to the custody of articles, the club wag responsible for the coat and its return.

Evidence was given by plaintiff. Air Alloo said that when plaintiff bad placed the matter in bis firm’s bands tho chib was written to asking for the return of the coat or its equivalent in money (£8 4s), and the club replied through the secretary that it did not hold Itself responsible for coats left over-night in the cloak room. Plaintiff, in reply to Mr Hay, said that ho intended to go back tho same day for the coat, but he forgot. Ho admitted that ho should have gone back for the coat. If ho had left bis coat there again on tho Monday ho would have to pay another Cd and get another ticket. Air Hay submitted that the club employed reliable servants in the cloak room to take care of tho coats for ti.e day. Plaintiff understood that different tickes were issued when there was more than one day’s racing, and plaintiff only obtained one ticket. The coats left over after the day’s racing were taken to tho secretary’s private office for further security, and back to the cloak room on the Monday. The attendants did not know what had happened to tho coat in question. Tho club only contracted to look after tho coats for the day. A person would not go out for a day’s racing and hand over his coat to tho attendant for two or three days. A breach of contract could only relate to tho first day; after that the club became an involuntary bailee, and was not responsible even if its own servants stole any of the articles loft. '

11. L. James, secretary of the Forbury Racing Club, gave evidence of tho system used in the cloak .room, and stated that the club only hold itself responsible for the coats for tho day. Instructions had been issued for the last meeting that the coats left over after a day’s racing wore to be left in tho cloak room, not to ho taken to tho secretary's office. That was an idea of his own, and had nothing to do with the committee.

Mr Hay said there was no evidence to show that there had been negligence on tho part of the club. The coats had been removed for' safer custody to the secretary’s room. Mr Alloo submitted that tho coat should have been left in the cloak room, the moving to tho secretary’s office constituting negligence on the part of the defendants. The Magistrate said that plaintiff’s statement of claim was not very clear; it should have claimed for the return of tho coat. The usual practice had been followed out when the coat was handed oyer. It was a flwwiwß whether

it was a contract for a day and was complete at tho end of the day or a contract for tho whole race meeting. There was nothing specified when tho contract was made. The cloak room of a_ race club could not he compared with a cloak room of a ball room. Had the coat been handed over tho second day and loft it would bo unreasonable to hold the club responsible. It was not necessary to go into the matter of taking tho’ remaining coats to tho secretary’s office. In his judgment an agreement had been made on the first day of tho meeting, and covered tho whole meeting. The coat was not a new one, and had depreciated. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £4, with court costs (£1) and solicitor’s fee (£1 6s).