IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 405, 2 June 1905, Page 2

IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

B. Shadbolt v. Canterbury '"-.■■- Shipping Oo, :-M-

Judgment was given yesterday in the case of E.Shadbolt v. the Canterburr bhipping Co., in which a claim for £200 damages^ sustained in the delay fa lifting sheep*and deterioration in the value of the animals. The S.M. held that there was sufficient evidence in the correspondence of a binding contract to' lift the sheen on Sunday, February 26th, provided the bar was workable. The ultimate liftfe. of the sheep on ibe 4th and sth March T^ff^S* 1" f Via'nCe °ri L S?v J Be ar WM workabh on the 26th February, and t^ttfirtilfci Aju was in. the yicinityitaiadiiilipiji^Sio Foxton, and^a -M*y****mmm** th« fulfilment. orm^oatort bMi«be*n occasioned. The Ctiaitni wasl U the .defendants to justify the delay. The earliest they could, have got into Foxton would have been 1 or, 2 p,m. on the 26th February. That was the lid* they expected to gerth'by, if aTtsu. Even tf tho weather had been too roagh at 10.20 p.m., it might have moderated suffl. cientlym 15 or 16 hours to render the bar quite safe. The Captain was bound to make Foxton if,;he reason* ably could, and, in justjee to the plaintiff, it was his duty if poasible to be where he could eauee tha suitability of the bar at the time the tide would serve. At that time.-however, he was standing off the Wanganui bar and ,hsd no chance of taking advantage of any change in the weather off Foxton. As a matter of fact the bar at Foxlon at high tide^on the 26th,wis in«xce*tionally good order with a smooth sea? and penty^of water.. It was due to the plaintiff that under the circumstances a closer inspection of the condition of the Foxton bar should have been made. He must find, therefore, that the bar was workable for the « BtbriD/' and'that if the captain had come in closer he would have found that ho could enter His determination not to do «b, bat to go on to Wanganui was within the scope of his authority and the defendants were therefore liable for the consequential damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims £106 15s, made up' of 2s per head for deterioration in 913 bv°Z» 1^ 9* COsts" "corred by delay. The sheep were tailed alone a road near Foxton for three days and there kept in a small paidock for two days and put on the ship during the next two days. When being tailed on the road they were brought back to the yards every day in the middle of the day as well as at night and it had been admitted that this should not have been i? n?\ T. ho witneßS generally agreed that the sheep would deteriorate somewhat but appareotly they did not deteriorate much. The S.M. was satisfied that the plaintiff would hate accepted a reduction of the freight from 23 3d to Is 7d as a sofficient recompense that is 8d a head, which would have in! eluded expenses as well as deterioration He would give judgment for the plain. tiff for j£22 10s (deterioration of sheep through delay £10, and expenses incurredi £12 10s.) Thefolfowtag eolta were also allowed :—Court costs £2 4? witnesses expenses £5 6a 6d, solioiton £1 3s 5d ev>denoe and chart