LOST LUGGAGE.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18339, 27 May 1931, Page 11

LOST LUGGAGE.

SERVICE CAR PASSENGER. CLAIM AGAINST COMPANY. MISSED CAR AT HAMILTON. When travelling by service car from New Plymouth to Auckland on April 18, 1930, William Lay, grocer’s assistant, Toko, lost his portmanteau, which he had given into the hands of the company’s officials, and after missing a connecting car at Hamilton arrived at Auckland without luggage. Subsequent failed to reveal the missing luggage, and alleging that the company had failed to deliver the portmanteau claimed the value of it and its contents, £2O. The claim was brought against Gibson's Motors, Ltd , in the Magistrate’s Court at Now Plymouth,' before Mr It. W. Tate, S.M.

Evidence was given by Lay in the morning, and in the afternoon evidence was given for.the defence. Albert Newby stated that when Lay came to him at Hamilton witness explained that the 0.30 car had gene, and that any luggage left at the office would have been put aboard the ear and taken to Auckland. When Lay said he had handed a hag ndo die office witness replied that no hag had been received. When witness reluted tiic statement lliat 1,10 I<u , been handed lo him Lay mentioned Ine driver Then, when he hail got o\er In's excitement lie. said the driver was not to blame, because bis ticket did

not indicate he was going on to Auckland. His Worship said the difficulty was that there was nothing beyond the plaintiff’s own word that there was a portmanteau. Counsel for plaintiff contended that the defence had produced no evidence to show that plaintiff had not booked his passage through to Auokland and had not put his luggage in the hands of the company. Actually the evidence showed that the portmanteau was given into the charge of the company at New Plymouth, and the onus was on them to show what had become of it. Also, the responsibility was not on hay, having been booked through to Auckland, to go to the office' at Hamilton and inform them that lie wished to' go on. His Worship said that plaintiff's evidence undoubtedly presented some difficulty, but there was some corroboration in Lay’s actions immediately following his discovery of the loss of the luggage. He reserved his decision.