WOMAN AND HER HAT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 438, 2 December 1930, Page 11

WOMAN AND HER HAT

DAMAGES FOE DETENTION LOSS OF COAT AT CLEANERS "You know yourself that you cannot wear a bowler hat with plus f° urB > said a woman plaintiff to DeputyJudiro Thesiger at Shoreditch County Court on October 8. She was Mrs Hanson, of Clapton, who sued a local firm for £lO 10s, value or a coat and hat sent to them to be cleaned, and £1 Is damages for detention of the artloMrs Hanson said that she delivered the coat and hat to the defendants last May. A week later the hat was returned, but subsequently defendants asked her to send back the hat to help them to trace the coat, which had been lost or mislaid at the cleaning factory. She sent them the hat, for the second time, last July, and had hot seen it since until that day. Defendants’ solicitor admitted hability in respect of the coat, which, he said, was still missing. Mrs Hanson said that she tried at West End shops to replace the coat, but could not get one to match the hat under £lO 10. At one shop £l2 12s was asked. . . The Judge: I understand that it is easier to match a hat to a coat than a coat to a hat? The coat cost you £7 3s. I shall allow you £5 for it. Now what about the hat? Defendant’s solicitor: Here it is. She can have it. What is wrong with it? Plaintiff: There was nothing wrong with it, but there is now you have tumbled it about. (Laughter). Can’t you wear it?—I can’t wear it with anything. I can’t wear it with the clothes I am now wearing. Perhaps not. But you can wear it. I can’t wear a straw hat with a dress suit, but I can with a lounge suit. Plaintiff loft the court with the hat. She was awarded £1 for what the judge described as unnecessary detention of it and inconvenience arising out of non-delivery of the eoat, judgment be-