MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21515, 13 September 1933, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

ALLEGED DAMAGE TO FUfINITURE At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., John Miller M‘Nulty proceeded against the Tilbury Forwarding Company Ltd., claiming £9 10s for damage alleged to have been done to furniture owned by the plaintiff while it was being stored by the defendant company. Mr T. A. Kinmont appeared for the plaintiff and Mr 1. B. Steven son for the defendant. Mr Kinmont said that in March, 1931, the plaintiff lodged with the defendant certain articles of furniture' for. safe keeping until required. Six months ago certain damage was done by a leak in the roof of the defendants’ premises. The defendant carried out certain repairs, but these were insufficient to put the furniture into its original state. The defendant relied upon a certain contract which, it was alleged, was signed by the wife of the plaintiff as his agent. The plaintiff denied any agency. Evidence was given.by the plaintiff', his wife, and Charles William Harris, an upholsterer, who stated that three cushions, exhibited in the court, were now of no value. Mr Stevenson said that the, defendant company denied liability on account of negligence. If negligence were proved the company was exonerated from liability by the special contract signed by Mrs M'Nulty as agent for the plaintiff. There was no contract to repair the furniture, and there was no legal liability, but as an act of grace the company undertook to carry out certain repairs. After evidence had been given by James Phillips ami George Tilbury, directors of the defendant company, the magistrate said that he did not require to near further witnesses. His Worship stated that lie considered that it Had been established that the defendant company repaired the furniture as an act of grace. That did not give rise to any legal liability. In the plaintiff’s case negligence had been established, but the evidence for the company showed that regular, inspections were carried out by people qualified to do so as well as by members of the firm. A cracked slate, which was stated to have- been the cause of tho leakage, was notoriously difficult to detect. The evidence of negligence, ho held, had been rebutted by the defence. With respect to the storage it seemed most unlikely that the plaintiff should not contemplate that there would be some formality and that something in the nature of a written document would enter into the matter. The plaintiff was not able to go to the company's office when asked to do so and sent his wife, who signed the receipt. She had his authority to act as she did. It might strike the ordinary person as very unusual that the responsibility of the company should be so limited as to be infinitesimal, but the fault in these cases was with the person who signed without familiarising himself with tho conditions printed on the receipt. Tho contract in this case could not now be repudiated. Judgment was given for the defendant company with costs (£1 Is).