COMMON CARRIER

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 57, 9 March 1922, Page 8

COMMON CARRIER

HIS DUTIES AND LIABILITIES

SET OUT IN RESERVED J.UDGMENT,

\A dispute regarding removal of furniture from a house at No. 111, Hataitairoad, to a second house at No. 14/, lia-taitai-road, was decided in a reserved judgment delivered in the Magistrate^ Court this morning iby Mr. W. tr. iucldell, S.M. The' case was that m which Mrs.' M'Conville (for whom Mr. M. F. Luckie appeared) proceeded against Curtis and Co., Ltd. (who were represented by Mr. E. Hadfield) for damages for goods alleged to have been lost m transit. These goods Were contained in a trunk, and were valued at £220. lhe defendant company employed three men to carry out the work, and they arrived at the first house shortly after 9 a.m. on 21st May, and the work was completed about 2 p.m. Plaintiff s husband said he saw the missing trunk in the defendants' van during the course of the loading, but the defendants' servants, while admitting that they had taken some trunks from the hovfa, said they could not recollect whether the trunk in question had been actually placed in the van. The Magistrate said that it was impossible to say from the evidence through what agency the trunk disappeared. The liability of a cqramon carrier was set out as follows in Halsbury's " Laws of England " :—" A common carrier i's responsible for the safety of the goods entrusted to him in all events except when loss or injury arises from an act of God or the King's enemies. A common carrier is liable for loss or injury, without any negligence of other persons over whom he has no control. This responsibility as an insurer is imposed upon a, common carrier by ths custom of the realm, and' is independent of , the contract between him and the owner of the goods." It was further, stated: "Having once accepted the goods for carriage, it becomes the duty o| the carrier not only to carry safely,, but also to deliver safely at the place to which the goods are directed. His liability ends only where there has been delivery, actual or constructive." The plaintiff's evidence, said Mr. Ri*dell, was sufficient , to cast the onus of proving delivery of the lost trunk on the defendants, and this onus, in his opinion, had, not been discharged.; The damages, however, to which the plaintiff was entitled was. affected by the Carriers Act, 1830, (Imperial Statutes), which was passed with the primary object of protecting common carriers from the risk they ran under the common law in carrying parcels containing articles of great value in a small compass. It provided that no common, carrier by land should be liable for the loss of any property of certain specified diescriptions, cont?tned in any package delivered to the carrier, where the value of the package should exceed £10, unless at the time of delivery of the package to the carrier the value and nature of such-articles or property should have been declared by the person delivering the package, and an increased charge above the ordinary charge paid, or agreed to be paid. In respect to. certain articles in the trunk, the Magistrate held that: the defendants were' protected by virtne of the provisions of the Carriers Act. The Magistrate assessed the damages due to the plaintiff at £37 10s, with £6 3s costs, less the sum.,of £6 ss, 6d, a claim by Curtis and Co. if or work carried oil.