FUR COAT AT RACES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18046, 22 March 1922, Page 8

FUR COAT AT RACES

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS.

APPEAL BY CLUB FAILS.

NOTICE IN CLOAKROOM. [BT ttXEORAPH.— JBBSS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Tuesday. The sum of £30 or £40 was involved in a legal action taken by Louisa Emily Symons against the Wellington Racing Club in respect of the loss of ft fur coat from the ladies' cloakroom at Trentham and in the appeal of the Racing Club against the decision of Mr. E. Page, B.M. The interpretation of the words " All care, but no responsibility," was the issue at stake. Mr. Justice Chapman delivered his reserved judgment on the point at the Supreme Court this morning, holding that the Racing Club had failed to show that the magistrate's decision should be reversed. The facts were briefly as follows: The coat had been handed by Miss Bvmons to one of the attendants in the cloakroom, and she had received in exchange ft 'check ticket. Three coats, two belonging to Miss Symons' friends, were hung on one peg near the door, but when the ladies returned Miss Symons' coat was missing. The cloakroom is divided into two. There is a staff of trustworthy attendants, and when a rush of visitors is on a policeman is stationed is the room to prevent overcrowding. " The appellants have no doubt in good faith endeavoured to avoid responsibility," continued His Honor. "They make no charge, while for keeping men's coats they make a charge, and assume responsibility They say that ladies' coats are too valuable. There iB nothing special about the ticket. It is a mere number in duplicate, one half being given to the depositor and the other pinned to the coat. Another precaution is to post up in the room three printed notices:' Cloakroom—While every care will be taken of articles left in this room, the club accepts no responsibility for the same.' "The respondent (Miss Symons) says she never saw this notice, and that nothing was said to her about responsibility. I must say it appears to me this notice if seen by the respondent would not necessarily affect her, as the notice, while discarding all responsibility for loss of articles left in tho cloakroom also assures the depositor that every care will be taken of articles so left. It seems to me, therefore, that a notice worded in this way does not necessarily bring to the mind of the depositor any essentially different measure of responsibility from that which she would expect. The position of the respondent might even be better under the notice than apart from '''AH I need say at present is r as between the appellant* and the respondent, the former has not taken complete measures to discard responsibility and this inference ia strengthened by the circumstance that it would have been very easy to do so by means of an uneqaivocal disclaimer on the ticket in such a form and position as to compel tho depositor to notice it." His Honor ruled Aat the question whether Mijs Symons had entered the club's grounds with a complimentary lady's ticket or not did not alter we principle he had referred to. The institution of the cloakroom, he said, was but one more attraction to patrons of the club's meetings. It was true as far as the Court knew there was no actual consideration moving from Miss Symons to the crab, but it muat be considered that there was consideration in a more general sense. The terms of the notice showed that the appellants were inviting all ladies who were so inclined to come to the races and leave their coate xn safetv. " The coat wns a very valuable one." concluded His "The attendants must have seen that. They are unable to sav when it disappeared or give any account as to what happened. They rhose the plnco where it was to be him. I cannot say that it is made out that the owner would have been reasonably satisfied with the amount of care beutowed on it after deposit. In ft'l the riWMMtanoes I hoM that grounds for imneaching this judgment have not been shown."