Berkowitz v. Pierce, 18.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1943
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Citation: 129 N.J.L. 299,29 A.2d 552
• Parties: BERKOWITZ v. PIERCE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

29 A.2d 552

129 N.J.L. 299

BERKOWITZ

v. PIERCE.

No. 18.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 5, 1943.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County.

Action by Sadye Berkowitz against Joseph P. Pierce, trading as Pierce Furniture Storage, to recover value of household goods of the plaintiff which were destroyed by fire while on storage with defendant at his warehouse. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

October term, 1942, before BROGAN, C. J, and PARKER and PORTER, JJ.

J. Charles Popkin, of Trenton (Frank I. Casey, of Trenton, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent).

Amerigo D'Agostino, of Trenton, for defendant-appellant.

PORTER, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment for $450 entered in the Mercer County Court of Common Pleas by the trial Court sitting without a jury in an action to recover the value of household goods of the plaintiff-respondent which were destroyed by fire while on storage with the defendant-appellant at his warehouse.

It appears that a son of the plaintiff, a member of her household, had knowledge of what articles were stored and what they had cost when purchased. He was allowed over objection to state his opinion of the value of the goods. His mother, the respondent, was in court but was not called as a witness in her own case obviously because of her illness. She was called by the defence and asked but a few questions. It seems apparent that she was unable to furnish any information concerning what the articles cost, what they consisted of, when stored or other details. She testified that she could not remember those matters because she had been very sick.

The appellant moved for a non suit on the theory that as the plaintiff had not herself testified no right of action had been made out. We think there was no error in refusing to non suit on that ground. It was not disputed that the goods had been delivered to the defendant, the bailee, and had not been returned because destroyed by fire in the warehouse. It was not necessary that plaintiff herself testify and indeed it seems to be almost forgotten that at common law interested parties, and persons interested in the result though not of record as parties, were disqualified as witnesses. 3 Blk. *369, *370; Wigmore on Evidence, chapter 23; Little v. Arrowsmith, 16 N.J.L. 221; Bogert v. Chrystie, 24 N.J.L. 57. The rule was relaxed in this state as to interested non-parties by the Act of 1855, P.L. p. 668, Nix.Dig. 1868, p. 1043; Bergen County Mutual Assurance Ass'n v. Cole, 26 N.J.L. 362; and abrogated as to interested parties in 1859, P.L. p. 489, Nix. Dig. 1868, p. 1044. See R.S. 2:97-l and 12 and 13, N.J.S.A. 2:97-1, 12, 13. Under the proofs negligence by the bailee will be presumed to have been the cause of the damage and the burden of showing the contrary or that he exercised a degree of care sufficient to rebut the presumption was upon the defendant. Proof of loss or damage to goods while in possession of a bailee establishes a prima facie case. New Jersey Manufacturers Association Fire Insurance Company v. Galowitz, 106 N.J.L....