SHORT DELIVERY OF FRUIT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 458, 17 March 1909, Page 8

SHORT DELIVERY OF FRUIT.

. . A TEST.CASE. ' (DT TEtEGIUrn—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) . ■ , . Duneilin, March 16. In tho Magistrate's ,: Court to-day A. Moritzson and Co. sued the Union S.S. Co. for £53 4s. 6d., for short delivery of fruit from the Islands, and damaged ilour froni Australia. Defendants paid £50 17s. 6d.-into Court, and tho action was conducted as a test case to settle tho question as to how much plaintiffs were entitled to for the short delivery of, fruit. Defendants contended that plaintiffs were only, entitled to the price at the port of shipment, plus the freight, and plaintiffs .claimed that they were entitled to the value at tho port of discharge. No evidence was■tendered as to the value at tho port of shipment, , but. the company had adopted in the past a scale based, they contended, upon tho values, at the port of shipment. Tins'scale, had been in force for over three years, but had always been protested against by'plaintiffs. Mr. Hay contended-that the cash valuo at the port of shipment in tho case of consignments for sale' represented the market price at tho port of discharge, less the freight. Evidence was given by A. Moritzson, who said that tho question had been a burning ono for years. Mr. White, for the company, contended that the clause in the bill of lading was perfectly reasonable, and there could only bo one.reading as to what was cash value at tho port of shipment, and that was that it meant market value there. The company had agreed with tho shippers to pay one settled scale in case of short delivery, and this system operated as often for the benefit of the shipper as for the company. The plaintiffs, therefore, had to show that tho amount offered was less than the cash value at.tbo port of shipment,, and if they were entitled to succeed they must show such value. No evidence on tJiis point had been offered.

After evidence for the defence, tho magistrate said it was clear to him from tho clause in the bill of lading that cash value in tho Islands was not tho price obtained at tho port of discharge witli costs added. That being tho prospective value could not bo cash value, and in those circumstances ho would hold that the claim had not been proved. He was of opinion tho clause wna reasonable. It would bo necessary to havo evidence concerning the cash value of the fruit at tho time of delivery if the matter were to come up again. The plaintiffs would bo non-suited, and the defendants allowed costs.