CARRIAGE OF FRUIT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13376, 18 March 1909, Page 5

CARRIAGE OF FRUIT.

A TEST CASE (rRESS ASSOCIATIOK TEJ.___.tAM.) J>UNEDIN, March 16. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, A. Moritzson and Co. sued tho Union S.S. Company for £_«3 4s Gd for short delivery of fruit from the Islands, and damaged flour from Australia. Defendants paid £50 17s (id into Court, and the action was contested as a test ca.se, to settle tho question as to how much piaintilfs were entitled to for the short delivery of fruit. Defendants contended that plaintiffs wero only entitled to the prico at tho port of shipment, -phis the freight, and plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the value at the port of discharge. No evidence was tendered as to the valuo at the port of shipment, but the company had adopted in the past a scale based, they contended, upon the values at the port of shipment. This scale, had been in force for over three years, but had always been protested againsiby plaintiffs. -Mr Hay contended that the cash value at tho port of shipment in the case of consignees for sale, represented tho market price at. thc port of discharge, less the freight. Evidence was given by A. Moritzson, who said that the question had been a burning one for years. Mr "White, for the company, • contended that the clause in the hill of lading was perfectly reasonable, and there oouJd only he one reading as to what was. tho cash value at the port of shipment, and that was that it. meant the market value there. The company had agreed with the shippers to pay on a settled scale in ease of short delivery, and this system operated as often for the benefit of tlie shipper as for the company. The plaintiffs had therefore to show that the amount offered was less than the cash valuo at the port of shipment, and if they were entitled to succeed they must show such vnlue. No evidence oh this point had been offered. After hearing evidence for tho defence, the Magistrate said that it was clear to him from the clause in the bill of ludinji that the cash value in the Islands was not the price obtained at tlie port of discharge, with costs added. In eirruinstances he would hold that the claim had' not been proved. He was of opinion that the clause was reasonable. It would b_. necessary to havo evidence concerning the cash value of fruit at the time of delivery, if the matter were to oome up again. The plaintiffs would be nonsuited, and the defendpn+s allowed costs.