PILLAGED CARGO

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 147, 18 December 1924, Page 7

PILLAGED CARGO

SHIPOWNERS' LiA&JLITY

A TALLY CLERK'S RECEIPT.

An important question relating to shipowners' liability in 'connection- with pillaged cargo, was decided at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Mr. W. G. Riddell,- S.M., gave judgment in a case, Gollin and Co., Ltd./ v. Captain and owners of the steamer City of Naples, and the Wellington Harbour Board. -

The statement of claim set out that about 10th October. 1923, Balfour, Williamson and Go. shipped on board the City of Naples, a steamer belonging to, or chartered by, the Federal Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., in good order and condition, eight cases of clocks and watches for delivery to plaintiff. When the clocks were tendered by'the Wellington Harbour Board for acceptance by the plaintiff's agents, about 3rd December, 1923, 15 alarm clocks were missing, valued at £15 6s. The plaintiff claimed alternatively against the captain and owners of the City of Naples, and the Wellington Harbour Board, the value of the missing clocks. '.-',' '

WHEN THE PILLAGE OCCURRED,

"After heaving the evidence -with regard to the condition and marks on the case, and the care exercised by the defendant harbour board, after delivery from the ship, I am satisfied," said Mr. Riddell. "that the pillage which resulted in plaintiff's loss did not take place while the case was in the custody of the Harbour Board, and the plaintiff cannot recover against this defendant. "The arid owners of the*ship are, however, in a different position, and their counsel relies on the receipt of the harbour board that the case was landed in the same apparent good order and condition as it was shipped The practice of the Harbour Board officials when giving receipts for goods tallied from vessels is to make a note of any marks or'breakage found" on-" any case or goods, and to. qualify their receipt accordingly. I am Satisfied that the case in question was interfered with before discharge from the ship, and under the conditions connected with its landing, I do hot. think the clesn receipt given by the tally clerk was conclusive evidence of its contents. 'ONUS ON THE OWNERS. "The, onus is,, however, on the master and owners of the C itv of Naples to show that the loss did'not take place while the case was in their custody, «nd I do not think this onus has been diecharged. .".... No evidence has been tendered to show that the case on shipment did not contain the goods which were missing when it wa's discharged at Wellington, and evidence has been given by plaintiff that the case was shipped in apparently good order and condition, lit these circumstances plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the master and owners of the ship for the amount claimed, and the defendant Harbour ?j o;! rd."}. entitled to judgment against

Judgment was entered for plaintiff for the sum of £15 63. with costs £7 Is x costs amounting to £5 Is Were alJowed defendant Harbour Board At the" heariug Mr. H F 6'L'ean appeared for plaintiff; Mr. A W BlaiV for the captain and owners of the steaT^^Ai Mr- J- F- B- Stevenson for the Wellington Harbour Board.