IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1197, 4 August 1911, Page 3

IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

QUESTION OP LIABILITY. In a case which was described by one of tho legal profession as of "vpry great importance" judgment was given by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday. Mason, Struthers and Co. had shipped 200 bundles of telephone wire on board the

jjhaw,. Savill, . and -Albion Company a I'akena. 'J'he wire was to bo delivered ai Wellington, but when it arrived here tic Telegraph Department retired to delivery of it. The plaintiffs contended that the wire hiul been so damaged in trau-ir as tfi he unsaleable and useless, it na<i remained on the. Wellington whan, »"« there v,:as ,£l3 2s. 6rl. due. for storage. Plaintiffs therefore claimed .£l2O, tJie amount of Iho storage (£l3 2s. lid.) and £W general damages, these sums totaling Counsel Vor plaintiffs was Mr. A. Blair, and for the defendants Mr. AV. H. u. The bill of lading acknowledged receipt of the wiro "in good order and condition. It reached its destination in the saino vessel in which it had been shipped, but u was alleged that it was.not then in good condition," and was useless to tne consignees. It was further alleged that there was a deposit of salt on the wire, which rendered it useless as telephone In'the course of the defence it was contended that there should have been a covering on the wire to be used for sucn telephone purposes. Other contentions j made in defence were that the wire na" J been shipped with an inherent defect, tnal it was insufficiently protected, and that there was negligence on the part ot tlie shipowners. • . ~ His Worship held that the lossi fell witiiin the exceptions stated in the billot lading (more particularly sweating, insufficiency of packing, evaporation, or tlie injurious' effects of other goods), ana therefore the obligation to prove rested upon the plaintiffs. In construing a shipowner's liability it had to be remembered that where the words left the intention in doubt they had to-be construed against the person for whose benefit they liatt been introduced. As to the point of the goods having been shipped "in good order and condition," it simply amounted to an admission by the shipowners that £0 far as they had had an opportunity ot judging, the goods had been so shipped. When risks had been accepted the shipowners did not undertake that more than reasonable care and skill would be shown. Ignorance of the injurious consequences ot stowing various kinds of goods together did not always amount to negligence. It could not lie said that there was negligence or want of reasonable sum unless the stevedores were well aware M the consequences of such stowage. Exceptions in a bill of lading limited the shipowners' liability during the\time they were in possession of the goods. Their failure to deliver the goods was prima facie evidence of breach of contract, and, may be,.of negligence on their part. They must then show that the cause of the loss was one of the excepted perils in the bill of lading. Unless the shippers could then disprove that and show that the loss was not covered by the exceptions, the shipowners would be protected. As the loss apparently fell within , the exceptions stated in the bill of lading, the obligation to prove negligence was unon the plaintiffs, and as the plaintiffs had not proved negligence they would be nonsuited. '

. DECISIONS RESERVED. Decision was reserved in the case of Thomas M'Call, saddler, Wellington, v. P.' R. Russell ami Co., Ltd., saddlers, Wellington, 'a dispute concerning th-.-purchase of a saddlery business in Huntervjlle.. . , . Decision was reserved in the cn-e in which Frederick Noil M'Yicar, boilermaker, Johnbonville, sued Ryder • Bros., butchers, of Petone, : to-recover £W as damages alleged to be due to plaintiff by. defendants respecting tho destruction of plaintiff's horse, which was gored by one of a mob of cattle owned by defendants.

JIEBT,CASES. . {Before Dr. : M'Ar&ur,. S.M.) "In th,e following .cases ..judgment was Bivon for the plaintiff j by default:—New Zealand 'State' GnaranCped 'Advances Department v. Carolina R.' B. :Raploy and Thos. W. Eapley, .£IOO ils. lid., costs £2 35.; .H. Ucimann v. J. Clapham, £2 5«. l<l., costs 125.; Wright. Ranish, and Co. v. Alfred Win. Jones, £7 10s. 2d., costs ,C 1 3s. Gd.; Bannatyne anil Hunter y. Bromley Hill. ■£& 15s; 7<1.; costs £1 3s. Cd.; Wellington Collego Governors v. Ernest E. Edmunds,. i! 2 45., costs lfi?.; Blundell Bros.', Ltd!, y. Frederick Edgar, Cs., costs 55.; and New' Zealand Times Company v. G. P. Guy, £1 8?., costs Bs. ■ , RESISTING A CONSTABLE. (Before Mr/ W: G. Riddell, S.3L) John Joyce appeared on several charges arising out of intemperajice. Ho had been found drunk in Taranaki Street, and had resisted Constable Garbntt, who arrested him. One of his forms of resistaneo was kicking tho constable about tlie body. Also, he had used certain language. Tie was..sentenced--to-21"•days''imprison-ment.,, , '•" "' OTHEE CASES." : . William Lyhdhurst was charged with having , assaulted John Larman and robbed him'of a sum of about On tlie application of the police he was remanded till August 9. For breaking a window in the Tramway Office, Alexander Gilmour, an ex-motor-man. was fined 10s., and ordered to pay for ths damage, and to pay 4s. witnesses' expenses. Only two inebriates were brought forward. Both were convicted and discharged.