STOWAGE OF NITRATE OF SODA

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3141, 20 July 1917, Page 8

STOWAGE OF NITRATE OF SODA

♦ SHIP'S LIABILITY IMPORTANT JUDGMENT " lit'. W. G. Biddell, S.M., delivered judgment ia the Magistrate's Court yesterday in (he ease of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Ltd., v. Iluddart, Parker, Ltd. The plaintiff company claimed d£DG 15s. lOd. from the defendant company for sixty sacks.of nitrate of soda shipped by plaintiff on defendant's steamer in- December last at Sydney, for delivery in, Wellington, and defendant had failed to deliver tlio goods. According to tho bill of lading,' (10 sacks of nitrate of soda were shipped in good order-and condition. Tho defendant company also shipped for another consignee 1()!M sacks of nitrate of soda, -a 'great part of -which was contained in rotten bags. Both parcels were stowed in No. 1 'tweea deoks without any dunnage between, or moans by which at the end of the voyage the small parcel could 1)0 distinguished from tho large one. The result was that when tho nitrate of soda was being discharged at Wellington it was fount! impossible to distinguish any marks on bags indicating that .they belonged to plaintiff. Although there were IGIH sacks in the larger-consignment the whole cf the nitrate of soda was discharged- before this quantity was made up. It was transhipped by the s.s. Calm for a fii'ni in Dtinediti, and "1726 parcels were sent forward by the steamer. Owing to broken bags, a nuinbor of these wero only half full, and the Harbour Board officials stated that tho quantity sent forward did not amount to more than 1(191 sacks, and they never received from tho defendant company tho 60 sacks consigned to plaintiff. Defendant's counsel argued that the 'loss was due to insufficient marking on the sacks consigned to pinintiif; that under the bill of lading defendant was free from liability for the obliteration ot marks due to. causes inherent, in tho goods carried, and that defendant s responsibility ceased as soon as the consignment. was landed on the whan at Wellington, and that as .all the nitrate of Foda carried hy the vessel had: discharged at Wellington the contract ot carriage bad been carried out. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the loss was due to defendant's negligence J.n niacin" tho nitrate of soda contained' in «'ood bags along with another shipment contained in rotten and broken "bags, aim Inking no steps to see that they could be identified at the cud of the.voynge. His Worship held that it was due lo waul: of caro in stowago thai, plaintiff s loss occurred. After quoting legal cases, His "Worship doubted, as both consignments were dumped from the vessel on to the wharf without tallying, whether there was .such a delivery to the Harbour Board on behalf of plaintiff as would relievo the defendant from liability for shortage. His "Worship held that plaintiff was entitled to judgment Tor the amount claimed, ilMi 15?. 10d.. together ivith costs .CO 10s. At the hearing Mr. M. Myers apneared for the plaintiff company, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant company.