SHIP-OWNER AND PASSENGER

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LIII, Issue 2800, 21 August 1903, Page 2

SHIP-OWNER AND PASSENGER

Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., read reserved judgment m the Magistrate's Court on Mon day morning in the case John Robert ThacIter (Mr Donnely) v. Pitcaithly Bros (Mr Beswick), claim £25 damages for the refusal of the defendant firm to carry plaintiff as a paseeneer on the s.s. John Ande'son except at an exorbitant (are.

•* The plaintiff in this case ia a resident of Okain's Bay, and the defendants are the owners of a steamer running from Lyttelton to Okain's Bay and other neighbouring ports. The defendants' veseels are advertised as regular carriers of c»rgo and passengers, and the fare for a long time pact, and at prerent, is 5n from Lyttelton to Okain's Bay, and 7e 6d returc. On April 3rd the defendants instructed the master of the steamer John Anderson to distinguish between supporters of their boats and nonsupporters, and told him to charge the latter 20s for a single fare and no return. They say in the letter, • We c nnot allow them to make a convenience of oor boat, and take their cargo dsewhere. This specially applies to the Thacker family. . It appears that the plaintiff, who is a farmer on a large scale, did not, in the opinion of the plaintiffs, send as much cargo aa he might have done by the defendants' boat, and they decided to retaliate. On May 28th the plaintiff went from Christchuroh to Lyttelton by train, and went on board the John Anderson, whioh was about to leave on an advertised trip; and, shortly put, this is what took place. The boat went to sea, and the master demanded from the plaintiff 20s, which plaintiff refused to pay, but offered to pay the usual and proper fare. Thu master then put the vessel back and returned to Lyttelton whirf, where he ordered the plaintifl ashore, and compelled him to leave the vesse'. The plaintiff went back to Christchutch, and thbnce by train to Little River, and rode from there to his home, a

distance of 22 miles. I pub aside a number of lubsiriiary incidents given in evidence, as the above are the main facts, and the defence is that the defendants were not bounde to take the plaintiff at all, and could chargwl him what they chose. In my opinion the <tfifcude taken up by the defendants is not j isi ifiable. They were bound to carry the plaintiff on payment of the usual fare, on-* less they could ahow that hie presence on b-mrd would militate against their legitimate interest, or they could allege and prqge some other valid objection. The plaintiff is entitled to damages, and the question is as to quantum. To give him nominal damages for being ignominiously turned off ft public steamboat and compelled to traveUfey tiain and horse until late at night in order to j'pocb his home wonld be to treat him wiu further contumely. His couneel vei£ properly left the question of damages to the GV urt and did not suggest that it made any difference to the plaintiff's finances whether ho recovered much or little. The defend' '>nts might have act up that the plaintiff sh.-ul 1 have paid the 20s and sued to recover the excess, and this would have weighed with mo a good deal, were it not for the fact that ldo plaintiff did effer, rather than JlB put ashore, to pay 20s, but the mseter then eaif] he would have to pay 303, and I think this last attempt at extortion was more than at youe w&s celled upon to submit to. The di -fendante have chosen to act in an arbitrary, highhanded w*y ; they have committed an illegal act, and in doing so have shown that they cared nothing for the inconvenience and ineult they put upon the plaintiff, and I do not think the amount claimed ir more than a respectable man should recover under the circumstances. Judgment will be for the amount claimed and costs."

On the application of Mr Beswiok Mr ffapelden fixed s r curity for ensts of appeal at t«.n guineas.—" Times." **