LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

Press, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5068, 5 December 1881, Page 3

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

At the Lyttelton Resident Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before J. Beswiok, Esq., R.M., tbe case of Edward Beece v the Union Steamship Company was heard. Mr T. W. Maude for plaintiff, Mr H. N. Nalder for defendants. This was a case in which plaintiff chimed £8 3s for damage alleged to be sustained to nineteen of sixty cases of castor oil shipped at Melbourne on a clean bill of lading in one of defendants' steamers. The damage claimed for was by leakage, loss of contents of oil caused by breakage of oases, alleged to have been caused by the carelessness of defendants in transhipping the goods. The bill of lading was put in as evidence, on which it was stated that the goods were shipped in " apparent good order and condition." Mr Nalder called the pointed attention of the first witness, W. Beece, to the word "apparent" being part of the wording of the bill of lading. W. Beece, for the plaintiff, swore that upon examination of the packages when they reached Christchurch they were found to be in very bad order, and that there was every evidence that the breakage of the cases was recent. In previous shipments of oil, when the goods had not been transhipped from one steamer to another, no suoh breakage and damages to the tins of oil had been found, and it was plaintiff's belief that the goods were damaged in transhipment. The whole of the nineteen oases were broken, and plaintiff thought, from their appearance, that the leakage had occurred within a week before the goods reached their destination. The examination of the oil was made by plaintiff on the 16th instant. Mr Day, of Messrs Heywood and Co., stated that the oil was landed on the Bth instant, and reached Christchurch on the 11th, a publio holiday intervening. On the 14th the Union Company ware notified that tbe oil was in bad order, and on the 15th plaintiff received a reply from Mr Puflett, the agent of the company, etating that the company were protected in the bill of lading against leakage. Mr Day testified to having the goods removed and repaoked. The cases were in his opinion in unmerchantable order. The goods were shipped on the 28th of October, and he thought that as it was a clean bill of lading, that the damage was done in transit between the 28th ult. and the Bth inst. James Shand, of Messrs Wood, Shand and Co., testified that he had seen the goods iv question in oompany with Mr Day. The cases were much stained, and several were leaking. Some of the cases were broken, and the tins containing the oil were exposed. He thought the damage was recently inflicted, and he judged that they had been subjected to very rough handling indeed. The oil was originally shipped at Melbourne by the Te Anau, and subsequently was transhipped to the Penguin at Dunedin. Both Mr Shand and Mr Day stated that the bad ordir of the cases was very conspicuous. W. J. Johnston, tally clerk in the railway, Lyttelton, swore that he gave a receipt for the oil when it was landed from the Penguin, on whioh it was stated that there were several leaking, all stained with oontents. The witness stated that a few of the lids might have been broken, but he saw nothing sufficient to require that he should state such breakage on the reoeipt he gave to the Union Company. Castor oil he always found leaky and had seen it running into the railway trnoks until it was lying an inch deep. Mr Maude wished to call evidence to show that the Union Oompany were not relieved of liability until the goods reached Ohristohuroh ; that so long as they were in the hands of the carrier, the carrier was responsible for their safe delivery. Mr Nalder pointed out that the suit was brought by plaintiff on a bill of lading of the company's, and that under that bill of lading the company's liability ends when the goods leave the slings on the steamer. The Bench deoided to take the evidence and decide legal points subsequently. S. Fanning, a tally olerk at Christchuroh railway station, testified that some of the cases when they reached him were broken in the lids. Mr Maude put in a list given by the Union Steamship Oompany to the Bailway Department at Lyttelton of the vessel's cargo, with the particulars as to whom the goods were to be forwarded to. He held that that of itself showed that tbe oompany reoognised a oertain responsibility in forwarding the goods into the hands of the holders of their bills of lading in Ohristohuroh. Mr Nalder contended that the oompany simply acted for the convenience of the consignees. He quoted decisions of the Privy Council in 1866 showing that it was inoumbent on the plaintiff to show bad storage and negligent— by the oompany to have a oause of action at all. He asked for a nonsuit on that ground alone. Mr B. Puflett, the agent of the company, testified that their responsibility ended and the reßponsiblity of the railway began when the goods were put upon the railway trucks, and the railway's receipts obtained by the oompany for them. The railway, however, are not supposed to deliver the goods to the consignees at Ohristohuroh until the freight is paid ; and goods which would be refused by consignees at Ohristohuroh would be held by the Bailway Department to the order of the oompany. The usual custom was to send the goods through to Christchuroh, unless otherwise ordered, and the railway undertakes to take over the company's lien on them and collect the freight with their own railway charges. W. H. Griffin, in the Bailway Department, testified to the general bad order of all castor oil packages. In the particular instance of this shipment of oil the goods were not sent to Christchuroh on behalf of the Union Oompany by the Bailway Department. They were, however, in the list supplied to the Department by the company of goods to be forwarded. This conoluded the evidence, and Mr Nalder, quoting from the conditions in the bill of lading, oontended that the defendants were entitled to a verdiot on many points of exemption stated in the bill of lading. Bad stowage must be proved by the plaintiff before he oould reoover. Moreover, the oompany, having landed the goods in Lyttelton, and reoeived a reoeipt for them in good order, except for leakage, were cleared from all further liability. Mr Maude oontended that sufficient affirmative evidence of negligence was produced by the plaintiff, inasmuch as a clean bill of lading was given in Melbourne when the goods were shipped, and a receipt was given by the railway on their arrival at Lyttelton which stated that the cases were leaky and stained by contents; that the goods were not delivered in like good order to the plaintiff to that stated in the bill of lading. Judgment was reserved.