A FROZEN MEAT CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 11511, 30 March 1901, Page 3

A FROZEN MEAT CASE.

[Feok Ottr Special CoaaESPONDEST’.I j i ,J, t, n ~‘r, v? • i_l_o -)i' ''V':” LONDON; - February‘23; 1 ’ . The Court., of Appeal, composed of tlje' blaster‘lqf the Rolls, Imrdb; 1 Juices Collins and. Romef/ on 1 Tuesday 1 last dismissed the; appeal of the.jiimitifftiiv Pjapsons v. the N^y’ CompMiy' ,frem the jiidg-, ment.df-ilr Justice Kenneqy in’ fayor of the. defendants.,.. y V . ''y.y ; I,"/; The point at issue was a. simple .but :important one connected with bills of 'lading. The plaintiff sought to , recover £124 I9s Id fpr short delivery in London of 154 frozen lambs ex,-.Fifeshire, and the facts .so far as material were as follow:—The plaintiff, bought from the agents of the,Christchurch; Meat Company a number of frozen lambs shipped on the Fifeshire at Timaru, and had endorsed to him two bills of lading and certifacates of insurance. It is only 'neoeasaoty to trara what;took place in’respect to one! biH ’of included 608 carcasste" stated to be marked 622 X. By. some clerical error in Now Zealand 101 of the carcasses were marked 522 X. By the time the Fifeshire reached London the price of frozen lamb had fallen, and the plaintiff declined to accept these 'lOl carcasses, and‘brought an action for damages for non-delivery. Mr Justice Kennedy found that the “ meat as a commercial, article is wholly unaffected in ‘ its character or value whether.it is marked 522 or 622,” and decided in favor;of the defendants. The Lords Justices came to the same conclusion, although they reached it •by very, cliff erent xoads. . 1 The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that, the} marks and numbers of identification yery. material to the [plaintiff, anfi painted a tragic picture of the that, might ensue if the holder of the bill of lading , took ■ as his own carcasses those . with, some mark other than that /specified - in his bill of lading, but which mark might be specified in another’s bill of lading. It was very doubtful if the goods were burnt whether the insurance company would be liable;.o pay on a policy which covered only carcasses markefi 622 X, and not carcasses marked 522 X; Secton 3 of the Bills; of leading Act, 1855, applied, and prevented the person sighing the bill of lading from attempting to show, that of the carcasses marked 622 X 101 were not shipped, but that carcasses marked 522 X were shipped in their place. - But a clause in the bill of lading protected the defendants. This clause ran: “The ship shall not be responsible ior correct delivery or loss unless each package is distinctly, correctly, and permanently marked by the merchant before shipment with the mark and'number or address.”

Lord Justice Collins considered that this case was not within-the mischief aimed at by the Bills of Lading Act, which only arose when the goods in to which the hill of lading purported to be signed had nob bpen put qp board, and the master or person signing relied on that fact as an. excuse for non-delivery. Here the .goods represented by the bill of lading to have been shipped had; been-shipped, and a mistaken , statement as to the marks merely made; identification more difficult. If mere identification marks were within the estoppel of section 3, any discrepancy between the marks on the goods and the marks on the margin of the bill of lading would equally destroy the identity. Every-difference would bo equally material, whether the result of accident or clerical error. To hold this would impose an enormous and, indeed, having’ regard to the practice of tallying.' an impossible task on the shipowners. He regarded the clause; in the/bill'of lading not so much as a separate grpund of defence-in itself as confirmatory of the main position that in the contract of the bill of lading mere identification marks were not regarded as affecting the central obligation to give and take delivery of the goods shipped, though incorrectness might furnish ground for a cross-claim if the consigned wore thereby damnified. Lord Justice Romer read a judgment to the same effect as ; that delivered by Lord Justice Collins. •