LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1279, 7 November 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. THE OCCULT SIDE OF SHIPPINGWHO IS EVER LIABLE? TELEPHONE WIRE PER PAKEHA. An appeal case —Mason, Striithers, and Co., Ltd., v. the Shaw-, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd.—was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday morning by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Tho appeal was from a decision of l)r. A. M'Arthur, S.M. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the appellant?, and Air. W. 11. D. Bell for the respdndents. In the Magistrate's Court action, it was set out that Mason, Struthers, and Co. had shipped 200 bundles of telephone wire on board tho Pakeha. The wire was to be delivered at Wellington, but when it arrived hero the consignees, the Telegraph Department, refused to take delivery of it. Mason, Struthers, and Co. contended that the wire had teen so damaged in transit as to bo unsaleable and useless. It hail retnainod on the Wellington wharf, and there was Xl 3 2s. Gd. due for storage. Mason, .Struthers, and Co. therefore claimed £120, the amount of the storage (i;I3 '2s. Gd.) and .£lO general damages, these sums totalling XH'I 2;.. 6d. ■l-he bill of lading acknowledged receipt of the wire "in good order and condition." It reached its destination in the same vessel in which it had been shipped, but it was alleged that it was not then "in good condition, - ' and was useless to the consignees. It was further alleged that thera was a deposit of salt on tho wire, which rendered it useless as telephone wire. In tho course of tho defence in the Magistrate's Court action, it w.as contended that there should have been a covering on the wire. It was also contended, by Way of defence, that tho wire had been shipped with an inherent defect, that it was insufficiently protected, and that there was no negligence ,ou the part of the shipowners. In the course of his judgment, the magistral had held, that the loss fell within the exceptions stated in the bill of lading (more particularly sweating, insufficiency of packing, evaporation, or the injurious effects of other gocds), and 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 tho parson for whose benefit they had been introduced. As the loss apparently fell within tho exceptions stated in the bill of lading, the obligation to prove negligence was upon the plaintiffs (Mason, Struthers, and Co), and as they had not proved negligence they would te nonsuited. It was from this decision that Mason, Struthers, and Co. appealed to the Supreme Court. After bearing argument yesterday, his Honour reserved decision. THE PEOPLE'S MILK. AND THE JAIIGON OF THE COURT. In the Supreme Court yesterday morning, Mi - . Justice Chapman delivered reserved judgment in the case of the Fresh Food and Ice Company, Ltd., v. P. J. Jones. This was an appeal of the lington Fresh I'ood and Ice Company, Ltd., against a decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., who, on October 15, 1910, fined the company ,£2, and costs £2 19s. Gd., for a breach of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1!)08, in selling milk which contained a substance (water), the addition of which is prohibited by the Act. Without determining the question of fact as to whether water had or had'not been added artificially to the sample of milk, tho magistrate had determined as a matter of law: That tho analyst's certificate was prima facie evidence of tho statements contained therein, That the certificate showed that the particular sample contained 12.71 per cent, more water than allowed by standard, and that, as the certificate was not disputed, it was sufficient to show that tho sample contained a substance whose addition was prohibited. That it was not necessary for the prosecution to show that water had been added after the milk had been taken from the cow, That the evidence called by the defendant company to show that no water had been added was not relevant to tho charge. A conviction was therefore recorded, from which the defendant company appealed. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop appeared for the appellants, and Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the Crown Law Office, for the respondent. During the course of argument,, Mr. Ostler submitted that, if the case was decided against him on the point of law, it should be referred back to tho magistrate to determine the question of fact. His Honour concurred. 11l giving judgment, his Honour held that, upon tho proper interpretation of Section 12 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, the question as to whether or not water 'had been added artificially was immaterial. The Act was passed for tho protection of the public, and it threw the responsibility for the sale of food on the vendor. Therefore, absence of mens rea was not open to defendant company unless it proved affirmatively, that it had taken all reasonable steps so that a sale would not constitute an offence or had obtained a written warranty as to the article. It was well known that cows could be made to yield large quantities of inferior water-loaded milk, but fortunately people here knew but little of this practice. If milk contains an oxcess of water, then it was not saleable. It was an oifence to sell it: The appeal would be dismissed with £b ss. costs. WRONGLY REGISTERED. ILLEGAL ORDER-IN-COUNCIL. In the Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Chapman heard an originating summons iu which Ereni Te Awe Awe called upon tho District Land Registrar to substantiate the grounds of his refusal to cancel a memorial, prohibiting (under Section 3G3 of The Native Land Act, 1989) also private alienation of a block of land (210 acros) for the period of one year from September 13, 1911. Tho land referred to is the subdivision of tho Mangatainoka Block known as Mangatainoka J. No. 4n. Ereni Te Awe Awo is the registered proprietor of this land, the private alienatiou of which was first prohibited, by Order-in-Council dated August 21, 1910, to take effect for a period of twelve months. There was a further Order-in-Council on September 13, 1911, which was entered in the certificate of Title Register. Eroni Te Awe Awo now asked that this be cancelled on tho ground that it was not authorised by Section 303 of The Native Land Act, 1909, because the previous Order-in-Council had expired, and on the further ground that Ereni To Awo Awe is suffering injury in being prevented from selling the land. Mr. C. H. Trcadwell (instructed by Hawkins and Lockhart-Fitzherbert. Palmerston North) appeared for the plaintiff (Ereni Te Aw© Awe) and the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond) appeared for the District Land Registrar. The Solicitor-General said he could not defend the case on its merits, but he considered plaintiff was not entitled to costs. After hearing Mr. Trcadwell, the learned Judge held that as the power to extend the first Order-in-Council had not been availed of, no fresh Order-in-Council could bo issued in respect to the same order and the same land. The Order-in-Council of September 13 should not, therefore, have been registered. Each party was allowed .£3 3s. costs out of the assurance fund.