LOSS FROM HOTEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26531, 5 August 1947, Page 8

LOSS FROM HOTEL

GUESTS’ CABIN TRUNKS DAMAGES AWARDED AGAINST PROPRIETORS P.A. AUCKLAND, Aug 4. Judgment for the plaintiffs has been given by Mr Justice Callan in the case in which Reginald Herbert Hawkins' and his wife, Edith May Hawkins, formerly of Nottingham, England (Mr Leary), claimed £SOO damages for the loss of two cabin trunks that disappeared while they were guests at the Central Hotel. Dominion Breweries, Ltd,, as the defendants, were represented by Mr A. K. North. K.C., and Mr C. Stevens. The plaintiffs went to the hotel on December 30 last with their trunks and when they prepared to leave on January 8 the trunks could not be found. The defence claimed that the hotel’s liability under the Licensing Act was limited to £3O. The jury last May found that the trunks had been lost through the neglect of the defendant innkeepers, or their servants, and awarded £475 damages. The'defendants asked that judgment be for £3O only on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the issues submitted. The defendants also asked, alternatively, for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, or on the ground of misdirection. In his Honor’s opinion, on the facts proved it would be a proper inference that the hotel was responsible for the loss under Section 174 (1) (a) of the Licensing Act to the full extent of the value of the trunks and their contents. He found it impossible to formulate any hypothesis explaining the disappearance of these trunks under which the hotel could not properly be held responsible for either neglect or dishonesty on the part of some hotel servant. ~ His Honor decided that the verdict of the jury should stand and gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £475, with costs and witnesses’ expenses. The plaintiffs were allowed £l2 12s as costs on the argument of the motions. His Honor was unable to accept the submissions made for the defendants as to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence and to misdirection.