Pregent v. Mills

Citations

• 51 Wash. 187
• 98 P. 328
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 992

Syllabus

<p>Bailment — Loss of Money — Presumption of Negligence — Burden of Proof. In an action to recover money deposited for safe keeping, the law presumes negligence if the money is lost, whether the bailment was gratuitous or not, and the burden of proof is therefore upon the defendant.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Cross-Examination. In an action to recover money deposited in a saloon safe for safe keeping, it is not error to permit cross-examination of the defendant as to his whereabouts on different occasions prior to the bailment.</p> <p>Same — Pleading—Conversion. An allegation of the deposit of money for safe keeping and a failure to return it, in effect alleges a conversion; rendering admissible evidence of the defendant’s visits to the race track and betting on the races.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Sufficiency—Question for Jury. In an action for the recovery of money deposited in a saloon safe for safe keeping, which was lost, the reasonableness of the explanation of the defendant as to' why he could not return the money is for the jury, although there was no contradictory evidence; also, the question of the bailee’s care, in leaving the safe under a half lock, in charge of a barkeeper.</p>