A QUESTION OF DELIVERY.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10, 8 August 1911, Page 5

A QUESTION OF DELIVERY.

* CHARLKS SHAN I), 'PLAINTIFF. A case of interest to {armors • and others who consign goods by ruil without getting a receipt from the Railway Department was heard at Dunedin on Friday More Mr Widdowson, s.m. Charles Shand, of Hillend, sued John Wilson, of Central Otago, for £-1 -1/7, balance due on 36 bags of grass seed. Mr A. C. Smith appeared for the plaint ill', and Mr C. G. White for the defendant, Charles Shand, Plaintiff, deposed that about a year ago he made a contract with defendant to supply 3(i bags of grass seed, and loaded same on a truck at the Lovells Flat station,'l counting them carefully. He asked the stationmaster for a receipt, but that j ollicer refused to sign for any number i as he was too busy to count them, j Subsequently he forwarded an invoice ' for the 36 bags, and some time after I Wilson declined lor pay for that number, as he only received 31, I A witness who helped to load the ! seed deposed that 36 bags were put I into the railway truck. j Mr Wallace, railway goods agent, at Dunedin, called for plaintiff, stated that it was not the practice of the Do- j I partment, if the consignor loaded his ' 1 own goods, to acknowledge any responsibility. They would give a receipt I ' for the goods, but not for a specific ! 'quantity. I s John Wilson, the defendant, deposed j I that the consignment of grass seed : from Shand arrived at the Lauder sta- j | tion after 10 o'clock at night, and at | i half past nine next morning he and his I 'waggoner took delivery from the j j trucks, but there were only 31 bags. | He asked the railway porter {or the I consignment note, but he said there was not one. He received a letter from Shand early in September saying the 36 bags had been sent forward, and three weeks later received an invoice for 36 bags. He did not point out the deficiency till early in October, as he had been away from home. Defendant's waggoner, who helped to take delivery of the bags, deposed that there were only 31 bags in the truck. His Worship, reviewing the evidence, said he thought it had not been shown that the action of the defendant in.notl i pointing out the deficiency in the delivery was sufficient to show injury to ! the "plaintiff. The question was whe- : ther there was a duty east upon the plaintiff to do more than he had done when placing his consignment in thetrucks. He thought if was necessary that goods should not be consigned in so loose a fashion, and that a proper receipt should have been obtained from the railway. Mr Smith elected to take a non-suit, which was accordingly entered , with £3 13/7 costs to (fafendaat,