Carter v. Borough of Allenhurst

• Decision Date: 19 May 1924
• Docket Number: No. 55.,55.
• Citation: 125 A. 117
• Parties: CARTER v. BOROUGH OF ALLENHURST.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

125 A. 117

CARTER

v. BOROUGH OF ALLENHURST.

No. 55.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 19, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Leoua Harris Carter against the Borough of Allenhurst. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Richard W. Stout, of Asbury Park, for appellant.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, for appellee.

KATZENBACH, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered upon a verdict rendered at a trial at the Monmouth circuit. The plaintiff, Leona Harris Carter, instituted an action against the borough of Allenhurst to recover the value of jewelry left with the defendant by the plaintiff for safe-keeping. The defendant, a municipal corporation, located on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, owned and operated a swimming pool. Connected with the pool there were bathhouses which the borough rented to patrons of the pool. The plaintiff, a young woman, and her parents were guests during the summer of 1922 of the Allenhurst Hotel. Through the hotel management two bathhouses at the pool were hired by Mr. Harris, the father of the plaintiff, from July 15th to August 15th. One was used by his wife and daughter, the plaintiff; the other by himself and son. As is customary in such bathing establishments, bathers left at the office, with a caretaker, their money and valuables, while bathing. This is a part of the services rendered to those hiring the bathhouses. The method adopted was for the employee having charge of this department to hand to the bather an envelope into which the bather placed his (or her) valuables and then sealed the envelope and wrote his (or her) name across the back. This envelope was then placed in a drawer in the office. After bathing the bather went to the employee in Charge of the valuables and received the envelope. On Sunday, July 30, 1922, Miss Carter upon arriving at the pool procured the key of the bathhouse she was using, dressed in her bathing suit, then left the bathhouse with her jewelry in her hand, and went to the office where an envelope was handed her, and she then did the several things which have been heretofore stated as those which were customarily done. Miss Carter bathed in the ocean for approximately two hours. After dressing she went to the employee in charge of the safe-keeping of the bathers valuables and asked for the envelope containing her jewelry it could not be found. It never was found. The present action was the outcome of the occurrence. At the trial the foregoing facts were testified to by the plaintiff and her parents. A motion to nonsuit on grounds which will be considered later was made and denied. An exception was taken. The defendant's evidence consisted of the testimony of the manager of the establishment, Mr. Kittel, and two women employees, Mrs. Walton and Miss Johnson. Their testimony was directed to the method used in checking valuables. It did not vary materially from the plaintiff's testimony in this respect. They also testified that no losses, excepting the loss claimed to have been suffered by the plaintiff, had occurred during four years. Mrs. Walton denied that Miss Carter had checked on this day any jewelry. Upon the conclusion of the defendant's ease a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant was made. The grounds were the same as those stated on the motion to nonsuit. This motion was denied and an exception taken. The case was submitted to the jury. To the charge of the learned trial judge no exceptions were taken by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are based upon the refusal to nonsuit and to direct a verdict for the defendant. We think the trial court ruled properly in overruling the motions for nonsuit and direct a verdict. The testimony offered by Miss Carter and the defendant presented a well-defined issue of fact as to whether or not the plaintiff left with the defendant her jewelry for safe-keeping. Miss Carter testified that she delivered her jewelry at the usual place to an employee of the defendant. This employee denied that on this day Miss Carter delivered any jewelry for safe-keeping while she was bathing. This was an issue of fact which could only be decided by the jury. It was not a question for the determination of the court. If Miss Carter did deliver the jewelry to the defendant for safe-keeping...