Bailment-WarellOlIscman-Thrft of goods-Burden of proving the theft

The onus is on a warehouseman who allege; that goods deposited with
him were stolen to link the deficiency with the theft.

Revision

March 15, 1936. Owen C.J.: Where a warehouseman pleads
that a deficiency in the goods deposited with him is due, in spite of his
reasonable care, to theft, he must prove it. He must prove that the
goods were stolen. In the case under review the learned judge, having
satisfied himself that the appellant had not exercised reasonable care,
assumed that there had been a theft of the gum found to be deficient.
This assumption was unwarrantable. There certainly was evidence of
a deficiency, and evidence that the door of his warehouse had been
broken open, but this, in the circumstances of the case, was insufficient.
There must be evidence from which it can be inferred beyond reason-
able doubt that the deficiency was due to the theft-that a thief had
stolen a certain quantity of gum. In his case a known quantity of gum
was delivered to the defendant on March 23, 1935. On April 10, the
lock of the warehouse was broken and the door forced. This was
reported to the authorities the following day, but the plaintiff was not
notified of any deficiency until September. There is no evidence of
any sort of check from the time of receipt of the gum by the defendant
until his notification to the plaintiff that seventeen sacks were deficient.

It would be improper to infer from this evidence that the seventeen

* Court: Owen C.J. and Gorrnan J.