DIVING SUIT DISAPPEARS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19626, 3 May 1927, Page 11

DIVING SUIT DISAPPEARS.

LONG PERIOD IN SHED. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. [BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT. J WELLINGTON, Monday. Whether people who had undertaken nearly three years ago to look after cerarticles for a few days were liable for the recent disappearance of those articles in regard to which the owner did not start to pay storage until last October, was the question Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., was called upon to decide in the Magistrate's* Court on Saturday. The case was one in which Frederick Davis, an ' ironmonger's assistant, of Patea, proceeded against T. and G. Barnao, G. Zino and G. Bonica, fishermen, of Island Bay, claiming £l4O damages arising from the fact that a diving suit and apparatus which he had left with the defendants had subsequently disappeared. The evidensw showed that nearly three years ago Davis, who intended commencing diving operations for a quantity of rails that had been lost in a wreck at Terawhiti, went out to Island Bay and asked the defendants, who were in partnership at the time, whether he could leave his gear in oue of their sheds. Tho defendants, on the understanding that the plaintiff would call for it within two or three days, agreed. Davis did not call, however, and the diving suit remained where it was fof two years, A man named Gardiner, the real owner 4 the suit, located Davis last October, and thereupon called on tho fishermen, agreeing to pay them 2s 6d a week storage. Shortly afterwards, the defendants sold out their business, and a few days afterwards the gear unaccountably disappeared. The magistrate held that there had been no neglect or negligence. Plaintiff had seen the shed before he left the gear there, and should have been able to form his own opinion of whether or riot it would be safe. Judgment was for the defendants., with costs according to scale. Mr. Winder gave notice that he intended to appeal.