SUPREME COURT.—Yesterday.

Auckland Star, Volume XV, Issue 3724, 19 July 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.— Yesterday.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies,)

Clark V. Scott.—ln this case, which was an action regarding trespass op property, the jury found for the plaintiff on all issues, and His Honor awarded £3 damages, the claim being nominal. His Honor certified that the case was a proper one to be tried in the Supreme Court.

THIS DAY.

Alfred pobtpb, john chambebs, and James Hardib, v. Samuel Jagqsb, Wm. Kasdcwn, and Matthew Hqopkr.— Claim, £479 17a 6"d, damages for loss of goods.—Messrs B. Hesketh and 11. Laiihley appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs Tyler and Theo. Cooper (instructed by Mr George) for the defendants.- The declaration set oat that on or about the 22nd of A pril, 1881, the plaintiffs, who trade under the name of V, Porter aad Co,, delivered to the defendants 100 cases of dynamite and one box of dotouatora for conveyance to Wellington in the tcUooner Atlantic, of which the defendants were owneis, and James McEenzie captain, the said goods being destined for the trustees of E, W. Mills and Co., of "Wellington, and bills of lading being given in respect of them. The charge for freight was fixed at£ls, and the vessel sailed away with the goods, bat they were not safely and securely carried and delivered as contracted, as, it is affirmed, by reason of the negligence of defendants they became wholly lost to the plaintiffs, wherefore they put in the present claim, which was for the valno of the goods, with cartage, lighterage, and freight added,—The defendants, in their pleadings, denied that on or about the 22nd Apr.l, 1881, the plaintiffs delivered, and that they received, in the manner alleged, the dynamite and detonators referred to, inasmuch as prior to that time, viz., on the 4th of February, 1381, they had demised the Atlantic, by charter party, to Captain James McKenzio, which was still in force on the 22nd April following, but they contended that the goods were delivered to, and received by them, as agents of the consignees, viz., the trustees of £. W. Mills and Co. at Wellington, at whose risk and for whose benefit they were to ba carried. They further..claimed, that: the goods were lost through the damages of the sea, and not by reason of any negligence or Wrong act on their part. The issues first arranged for the determination of the jury were as follow : (1) Did the plaintiffs on or about; the 22nd. of April, 1881, deliver tp the defendants tho goods mentioned, in the declaration, to wit, 100 cases of dynamite and fine box of detonators, to be carried for the plaintiffs in the vessel Atlantic from Auckland to Wellington, and to be there delivered according to the terms and subject to the conditions contained in tho bill of lading mentioned in the said declaration, and did the defendants receive and accept of the plaintiffs the said goods to be carried as aforesaid ? (2) Did the defendants, as owners, on or about the 4th of Feb., 1881, enter into the alleged charter party with one James McKenzie ? (3) Was the said vessel at the time of Shipment of the said goods and at the time of signing the said bill of lading in the possession of the said James McKenzie under the eaid pharter party? (4) Had tb,e plaintiffs notice and knowledge of the said' charter party prior to arid at the tijrie of shipping the said goods ? (6) Ww the delivery of 1 the said goods, as in the declaration alleged, a delivery to the defendants as agents for the consignees, to wit, the trustees of E, W. Mills and Co., at whose risk, and for whose benefit, the said goods were to be carried ? (6) Were the defendants prevented from carrying and deliveting the said goods,' as aforesaid, by any of the perils or causes In the¥aid bill; of lading excepted? (7) Did the said goods, during the'said voyage, become wholly lost to the plaintiffs by reason of the negligence and wrongful act of the defendants ? (8) What damages (if any) are the plaintiffs entitled to recover from the defendants ? On this occasion, however, all the - issues were admitted except the fourth one, and this the jury were empannelled to decide.—The tirst witness called was Alfred Barngs, shipping agent, who deposed tb,at in April. 1831, he received' instructions froju the plaintiffs (Messrs 3f. Porter and 06.) to find a vessel fa cqnyey IQQ cases of'dynamite from Auckland to Wellington, but that subsequently learning that the Atlantic was partially laden at Auckland for JLy Helton, he was directed to make arrangements for its conveyance by her. He accordingly opened up negotiations with Mr M. Niccol (the agent), and Captain McKenzie (master ot the vessel;, tor the carriage of thn goods, and the necessary deviation in the voyage, At first |Captain McKenzie wanted £20 freight, but eventually he consented to talse the £Is, or 3s'pqr case, that Was oifferoi." Witness reported the arrange. mentlXo "Messrs B. Porter and po., and there his share in the matter etydp'd, - Qafe tain Jajneg ' MoKptiaie deposed that fn Marpb, 18^1, he entered jnto a charter party with the defendants, for the use of the Atlantic, ?uici that it was Btill -current when the arrangements were made with the plaintiffs for the conveyance of the dynamite. He did not explicitly tell Mr Barnes of the charter party, but he alluded to it by stating that he had to pay a heavy rent for the vessel, viz.,- £35 per month.—Malcolm Niccol, agent „ for Captain McKenzie, gave

animation the case for the deftndanta ended,—Mr E. Heskoth then stated the plaintiffs' case, after which the following witnesses were called : -John Chambers, one of the plaintiffs, who deposed that he never heard of the alleged charter party until after legal proceedings had been instituted; Alfred Porter and James Hardie (the other defendants), who gave corroborative evidence; and Alfred Barnes, who was briefly cross-examined. -Mr Tyler and Mr E. flesketh then itt turn addressed the jury. At 3,20 p.m. the inry returned an answer in the negative to the 4th issue, viz., that no notice had been given the plaintiffs of any charter party. His Honor thereupon gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £464 17s 6d, which is the amount of their claim less the £15 freight that they did not pay. B The question of liability for the costs of the previous trial was held over for determination in Chambers.

The Court then adjourned till 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.