PILLAGED GOODS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 139, 6 March 1908, Page 6

PILLAGED GOODS.

' QUESTION OF LIABILITY/' TEST CASE. BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL CORBESPONDENI Dunedin, March 5. ■ A- mercantile case of some importance, though only a trifling amount is immediately involved, came beforo Mr. Widdowson, S.M;, 'this., morning. It.iras.a claim, bj; T.--E. Shiel and Co;fruit importers, against, the Union Steamship Company.-; . Mr. Burnard,stated- . that the 'case had been brought with a view. of t testing the liability of tho company to pay for pillaged' goods.. For-ypars the.company; had taken up " tho- positiqn that they ivere not liable to pay for pillages, and the; leading importers of fruit ' here had suffered considerablo loss, amounting in'. 1 tho busy seasou to: several pounds a week. The company had declined to pay v a claim-made by, the, plaintiffs for pillaged ; goods, but': he: (Mr. Burnard) had advised, that the company liable, and that an action should be brought against them by . way of a test case. That action had 'been, instituted, and the. company; had paid, the claim (£2 Ss. 6d.) that .morning. - ■ ■■■■'•' V ; \ v ; Sir. 'White,- for''defendants,stated.;, that that was so. ■'""0 \ Mr., Burnard then - asked His ■ Worship whether he considered additionalv, costs should bo awarded under tho rulo which permits the Court ..to allow such fee when tho point involved ;in the action amounted to a novel point of law.'. ;; V .' .-' ;Mr. White submitted that tho case did. not come lyifhjn- the i terms of the rule, and that no coats should bo allowed.. , .. Mr. Bu'rnnrd stated, i as;. indicating the importance of' the ease, _ that; the company had threatened tJiut if the produce merchants, persisted 'ill.; making olainis for pillages, they would immediately raise, tjie rates. - • ■ His Worship said .that ho could not sea his way to allow costs.othor than the ordinary costs (Bs.), payable to, plaintiffs upon their statement of claim. ; : - ;. In answer to a question from pie Bench as to whether it was, thought that the result, of this' action would: have the .'effect, ofpreventing'pillage iii the future,- Mr. Burnard said lie thought it would, because the company, ■ having a greater, ', liability,:, imposed upon them, would bo compelled to watch the fruit* more closely., ■ - His Worship: " I doubt if civil proceedings will-do much good. A criminal prosecution might."' , . .. ' Mv Burnard remarked that further, actions would be brought unless ; other claims for pillages wcro also promptly paid,