DAMAGED WIRE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 232, 1 October 1925, Page 7

DAMAGED WIRE.

CLAIM FOR £7534. AGAINST SHIP WESTLAND. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. A long delayed action, pending since 1919, was brought to a conclusion in the Supreme Court to-day, when 'Mr. Justice Herdman delivered a written judgment in the ease between John Burns and Company, Limited, merchants, of Auckland (Messrs. H. P. Richmond and T. N. Holmden) and the ship Westland (Mr. ABlair), in which the plaintiff, as endorsee of certain bills of lading of goods shipped on board the Westland at New York, to be carried into the port of Auckland, claimed against the ship the sum of £7534 5/3. for damage done to the goods, and costs.

The goods consisted of bundles of galvanised wire, which were delivered to the ship in New York Harbour on January 23 and 25, 1919. It was admitted that the wire arrived in Auckland in a damaged condition, it being extensively pitted with some kind of white precipitate. Lengthy evidence bearing on the cast, was given in America. The action was heard at Auckland in April and August of this year, occupying several days. The' bills of lading declared that the goods were received by the ship in apparent good order and condition, so, to begin with, the onus was on the ship to make out a defence. With that purpose in view, it claimed that, although the wire was in apparent good order and condition when it was delivered on to the ship, it was then actually in a damaged condition on account of having been exposed to water or other liquid before having been delivered to the vessel, but that the damage which subsequently occurred to the wire, as the consequence of such exposure to water was not apparent at the time of shipment, and the fact that it was then damaged could not theu have been ascertained by defendant. By way of an alternative defence it was contended that the damage to the wire dereloped after shipment, as the result of exposure to moisture before shipment. or as the result of condensation of moisture on the wire due to changes in temperature. Further, it was claimed that the ship was protected by the bill of lading, the defendant ship claiming particularly that the damage to the coils of wire came within one or other of the following exceptions to responsibility: Sweat, rust, decay, heat of holds, and inherent defects "of the goods. His Honor proceeded to examine with minuteness the history of the wire from the time it left the manufacturers works till it was unshipped in Wellington.

The wire was manufactured by the Inter-state Steel and Iron Company, at Grand Crossing, Chicago. Mr. Stone, manaper of the Grand Crossing Plant. gave lengthy evidence in America. His Honor said he gathered from this evidence that other wire, manufactured under conditions precisely similar to that under review. was exported to South America. Japan. China. Australia and to Europe, but no complaint about the quality of the wire was received from the consignees. The ship left New York on January 27. and the loading of the wire had commenced about five days before that. It would seem that during this period, on January 23. there was a fog. and the heaviest precipitation of moisture recorded in January. On January 24 the highest wind velocity for that month was charted. 84 N.W. beim. the figures given. Referring to., the American evidence, j after reviewing it at some length, his Honor said that it would be seen that it contained a hint that damage was done by salt water, and there was some evidence from which it could* be inferred that the manufactured article was itself j of inferior quality, the galvanising being I so poor as to afford little or no protect I tion against the salt-laden moisture. His j Honor was told that the wire reached th« ' deck of the ship apparently dry, and j there was evidence that no signs of deterioration were visible. He was Informed, too. that it was safely deposited in the hold of the ship, and" carefully stowed in quarters which had been carefully prepared for it. But although no damage was visible, it did not follow that some harmful agent was not already at work when the ship accepted the goods.

His Honor thought the mischief was dope in New York Harbour, and nowhere else, for the one fact that loomed out definitely from the rest of the evidence was that -the wire could not have come to harm on the ship., His Honor had searched in vain for evidence pointing to want of care on the part of those in charge of the ship.

As a ship was not liable if goods had been shipped in an unfit condition which was not apparent, and which could not. have been ascertained by the ship, judgment would be for defendant. Since Tt had been arranged that the quantum of damage would be. settled by counsel, who would also settle all questions of costs, his Honor did not deal with those questions.