GLASS DAMAGED IN TRANSIT. A TEST CASE.
FBT TELEGBAFH. — FRESB ASSOCIATION.! DTTNEDIISi. ?A i \\ Novpmber. A case of some interest to merchants and the shipping community was f>egun at the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr. Hutchison, P.M. The p'aintiffs were Andrew I-ees and Henry .Brookes and Co., consignees nnd consigners 1 resppctively of a shipmpnt of glatfWthat arrived, by the Nev Zealand Shippfng Company's Rakaia, •'jitl the defendants were the New Zealand Shipping Company. The amount of the <;laiin was only £4 19s 2^ fo>* damage dono to the glass in transit, tut as the interests affected are i>onsidfira>ile>, the • parties agreed to make it a test case. Mr. Burnard, ,who appeared for plaintiffs, said tho case was + o determine the liability of a shipping company for breakage of glass. A quantity of glass had been shipped from Antwerp and transhipped at London into the company's . vessel. It 'vas shipped in good order, but when landed here, some glass was damaged *v th<=- extent claimed. The defendant company re'ied on certain stipulations in the bill of lading. The question Was whether these conditions were just and reasonable. The extent to which these conditions could hold was determined by Section W0 of the Shipping and Seamen Act of 1903 of the New Zealand Consolidated Statutes, presuming the New Zealand Act applied to this particular bill of lading. The facts were admitted. For the defence, Mr. Hosking, K.C., said that the Shaw-Savill Company was incorporated in London and its strips registered in England, and the New Zealand Shipping Company was incorporated in New Zealand, and its ships registered in England. On this depended whether the bill of lading was to be construed according to N*"w Zealand 'aw or English law. The point was, did the section in the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen i Act 1903, apply? The section stated : Any clause in the bill of Jading providing that shipowners or agents should be- relieved, .of liability from damage arising from improper condition in the ship's hold, negligence, fault, , or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery of merchandise committed to their charge, shall bo null and 1 void, unless the court holds it to be just J and reaaonable. " The question was whether the parties had not, by their I [ contract, submitted to have the clause in the bill of lading interpreted according | to the law in England? j The decision was reserved.
GLASS DAMAGED IN TRANSIT. A TEST CASE.
Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 125, 25 November 1908, Page 11
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in