FARTHING DAMAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21520, 17 June 1933, Page 2 (Supplement)

FARTHING DAMAGES

GIRL'S "IMPfcISONMENT" STORY OF A DRESSING GOWN VISIT TO A LONDON STORE A 23-year-old woman, who alleged that she had been wrongfully arrested and imprisoned on a charge of attempting to obtain a dressing gown by false pretences was awarded one farthing damages in an action she brought in a London court last month against Harrods, Ltd. Mr. Justice Branson entered judgment for defendants, with costs since a payment into court by them. Plaintiff, Miss Sarah Annie Roberts, claimed damages for alleged false imprisonment and assault. . Harrod3, in defencg, did not admit that Miss Roberts was assaulted, that they gave her into custody, made any charge against her, or caused her to be im~ prisoned. Counsel for Miss Roberts said she was of irreproachable character. She and her mother some years ago took situations with a Mrs. Smith at an address in Montpelier Square, the mother acting as cook and plaintiff as parlourmaid. Later, when her mother left, Miss Roberts obtained a position as secretary and receptionist to a number of dentists and doctors. She was still employed there and had given every satisfaction. Use of Mistress' Name On April 9, 1932, plaintiff went to Harrods to buy a dressing gown for a man friend, taking about two guineas with her. She saw a dressing gown which was 555, and as she had not enough money with her, she said it must go on to an account. While in Mrs.. Smith's employ Miss Roberts frequently went shopping for her at Harrods, and on this occasion she thought there would be no harm in using Mr». Smith's account. She said she would go -round later and give Mrs. Smith the money. She signed a debit note in the name of "A. Smith." When she was questioned, Miss Roberts said she had lived with Mrs. Smith in Montpelier Square. Harrods' chief detective came up, and Miss .Roberts was taken out- of the shop and across the road to some offices. She gave her proper name, but said she had just got married. " The stores detective," added counsel, "said he would call the police, and in this room she was given into thu custody of a detective. He took her to a police station, where she was put into a cell and searched b\' a matron. She was left in the cell for a little time and then taken to another room where her fingerprints were taken. She was put back into the cell nntil 1 p.m. or 1.30 p.m., and taken in a taxi to Westminster Police Court. There she 'was placed in another cell until her case was called. Defending Counsel's Questions After being brought before a magistrate plaintiff was committed for trial and there acquitted. "For this indignity and wrong she brings her action and asks for damages/' concluded counsel. v Plaintiff, replying to defending counsel, admitted that after giving her name she said she was married, aid that her husband's name was Ernest Smith. - The evidence of a detective was interposed. He said he thought at first that plaintiff's name was Mrs. Smith, but later she said her name was Roberts. When Miss Roberts returned to the box she was asked by defending counsel: "Do you agree that you did a very foolish and a very stupid thing in making so many misstatements to Harrods, and had only yourself to blame for the result?" " Yes," replied plaintiff. Counsel submitted that, as the allegation of false imprisonment contained in the statement of claim referred only to a police station, there was no evidence that Harrods had imprisoned her there. " Wrong and- Foolish " Conduct Mr. Justice Branson, summing up, said he saw no evidence of any assault, and so the case came down to the question of whether Miss Roberts had been falsely imprisoned. There was a technical imprisonment by Harrods, and therefore Miss Roberts was entitled to nominal damages. As a matter of law, said the judge, if a person gave someone into the custody of the police, then the custody which the police exercised was on that person's authority until the accused person had been brought, before « magistrate. In considering the amount of damages to be awarded the jury must take into consideration the wrong and foolish, though not criminal, action of Miss lvoberts herself