MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21878, 15 November 1934, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) DYEING OF COAT. Marion Wilson (who was represented by Mr R. S. Frapwell) proceeded •gainst- the City Dye Works (for whom Mr D. A. Bell appeared), claiming to recover £4, damages allegedly sustained by the spoiling and shrinking of a lady’s overcoat, delivered to an agent of the defendant for it to be dyed brown by defendant. The statement of claim set out that defendant unskilfully and negligently spoilt the coat, which was rendered unwearable. Mr Frapwell told the court that the plaintiff had been approached by a canvasser from the City Dye Works and asked if she had anything to be dyed. She refused at first, but the next day gave the canvasser a green overcoat to be dyed brown. This was taken to the dye works, and plaintiff heard nothing ' further for a fortnight. She went down to see the defendant, and was advised that it would be sent up by the next hill delivery. She went down again twice, and was then informed for the first time that there was a chemical gtain on the coat. Plaintiff was advised to have it dyed black. She refused, and the defendant then agreed to dye it brown. When she got it she found it had shrunk so much that she was unable to wear it. Plaintiff gave evidence along these lines, and for the defence Mr Bell said that the facts in general were admitted by the defendant. There was nothing on the face of the coat to indicate that it would.not dye satisfactorily. When the coat came out of the dye it was obvious that an attempt had been made lit some time or another to clean off a stain by treating it with an alkali. The evidence of defendant would show that the plaintiff was warned of this and of the risk she was taking in having the coat dyed brown, and it was on her express instruction that the coat went back to the dye. To remove the stain necessitated several dyeings and strip- £ lings, and it was as a result of these ater processes that the shrinking took place. Defendant denied any negligence. Evidence was given by 'Henry Halhday, a partner in the defendant firm, who told Mr Frapwell that he was practically certain that the stain had been put on the coat either in the factory or the warehouse. John A. M'Ewan (dyer) and Olga Abbott (shop assistant) also gave evidence. The Magistrate said that the first point was what was the origin of the stain in the coat. What apparently was the case was that it was a chemical stain which had been in the material and did not show until the process had been gone through in the dye works, when the stain showed up. The defendant company could be in no wise responsible for the stain showing up m the process of dyeing. It was obvious that very considerable discussion must have taken place between plaintiff and Halliday in regard to the matter. Halliday and his assistants stated that they had explained that there was a great risk of shrinkage if the process of the brown dye was gone on with, and black was recommended.

His Worship said that the probabilities pointed in the- position being as stated by Halliday and his assistants. On the evidence before liiin it could not be said that the defendant company in anv way failed in its duty. Judgment was given for defendant.

DEFAULT CASES. •Judgment, with,- costs, was given in the following undefended cases:— D.I.C. Ltd. v. Mae M'Donald (Lauder), £5 Is lid, goods supplied; Reddells Ltd. v. Elizabeth Williams (Burnside), £3 14s, goods supplied; A. and T. Burt Ltd. v. J. M. Graham, 16s 6d, goods supplied; Otago Hospital Board v. Henry Perry, 15s, balance due for hospital maintenance; D.I.C. Ltd. v. J. H. Taylor, £8 17s 2d, goods supplied; T. Gilchrist and Sons (Oturehua) v. C. J. Adams, £l, goods supplied: Otago Hotel, Restaurant, and Boarding House Employees’ Union v. S. Hill, £2 12s, contributions due; John Chambers and Son Ltd v. J. A. Taylor (Timaru), £t 12s 9d, goods supplied; John Chambers and Son Ltd. v. W. Burke (Timaru), 15s, goods supplied; James Cameron (Berwick) v. Charles Crawford, £7 18s 9d, goods supplied. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Orders for immediate payment were made as follows:—S. Jarvis v. J. Jarvis, judgment debtor to pay £6 0s 6d (costs 10s), in default seven days’ imprisonment; Edward S. Tall (Invercargill) v. E. F. Dawson, debtor to pay £2 10s (costs 8s), in default three days’ imprisonment.