LIABILITY OF CONSIGNEES.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9835, 18 September 1897, Page 5

LIABILITY OF CONSIGNEES.

. AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

(PRBSS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) GISBORNE, September 17. A question of considerable importance to mercantile men has cropped up in a case, now bofore the Magistrate's Court, arising out of the lo3a of the Tasmania. Evidence was heard in Gisborne in the case, originating at Auckland, Colonial Sugar Refining Company v the Poverty Bay Farmers' Cooperative Association, claim £20 15s 4d, for sugar supplied. J. McCummiug, shipping clork to the local agents of Huddart, Parker, said he remembered the last trip of the Tasmania. He produced tho manifest of the cargo, in which he found no consignment of sugar from the plaintiff Company to the defendant Compauy. If sugar had been consigned to the Co-operative Association it would have appeared in the manifest. There was no entry of a consignment from the Sugar Company to the defendaut Company. To Mr Delautour—From his knowledge of the brands in the manifest, he should say there were fifty-six 40's No. 2 sugar and a case of syrup from the Sugar Running Company.

Mr Rees objected to this evidence. The evidence was put in and Mr Raes's objection noted.

To Mr Reed—lt was consigned "to order." Ho would nob have given up the goods without the production of a boat note, which would come through a Bauk to the consignee. There wero consignments direct to the defeudant Company from other parties than plaintiffs. J. C. Dunlop, Manager of the Poverty Bay Farmers' Co-operative Association, said he ordered soma sugar and sj'rup from the plaintiffs iv July last. He learned that the goods had been shipped by the Tasmania through a telegram from the plaintiff Company, stating that the goods had been shipped at his risk. He received that wire on July 50th, after the wreck of the Tasmauia. He replied disclaiming the risk. The terms on which the Association did business with the plaintiffs were that they paid cash before or upon delivery. The igoods were not consigned to his firm. To Mr Delautour—He had no intimation of being consigned in this case. He could ►only receive intimation through the Bank. He did not know to whom the sugar he ordered for the Association was consigned, but he believed it was consigned " to order." Previous shipments of sugar had been consigned to order, and it was on production of the boat vote that the goods were delivered. Re-examined—The Bank would only deliver the boat note on payment of the price of the sugar. The order he got was merely to get the goods from the shed. That had nothing to do with the consignment of the goods "to order." He got the goods when he paid for them, and nob before.

The evidence will be forwarded to Auckland, where the case will be heard and decided.