DAMAGED GOODS

Evening Star, Issue 17542, 23 December 1920, Page 9

DAMAGED GOODS

I JUDGMENT AGAINST .SHIP. A PROBABLE APPEAL. This morning Mr H. Y. Wkldowson, S.M., gave judgment in the case in which ' the Drapery Supply Association claimed ) £45 6s 2d from the .Shaw, Savill, and | Albion Company, Ltd., as damages in | respect of certain goods which .plaintiffs I alleged were spoilt through negligent car- | riage in the steamer lonic from London 1 to Dunedin in the early part of 1918. I His Worship said the evidence showed 1 that, the goods were landed at Port Chal- | mers on April 25, 1918, loaded into railI way trucks, and delivered into the railway | goods sheds on April 25 and 27. It was j customary for all goods to be examined tPcre by the consignees and shipowners’ representatives, but that was not done in this case. When the goods were delivered into the railway goods sheds, plaintiff’s goods were mixed" up with hundreds of other cases belonging to other consignees, and it seemed that it would have been an extremely difficult matter (if not well nigh imnossiblo) for all goods to be examined within seven days after discharge. After , reviewing the evidence, His Worship said ho thought there was no question as to whether tho damage occurred after the ffoods were discharged from the ship, as the evidence clearly showed that some at least of the damage was discernible while the goods were still in the ship’s hold, and that none of the damage was recent. It seemed from the evidence that the damage could not have been done by green or sappy timber, but by the agency of water. That certainly commended itself when tho extent and 'nature of the damage were considered. There was no doubt that the damage was weeks.old, which, of course, suggested that the cause of it happened. either before or at the time of shipment or during the early part of tho voyage. If it happened in the course of transit to the ship or while being shipped it would be reasonable to suppose that the cases would show some external appearance of wetting, and, judged from their condition on discharge, that would, most certainly have been the case if the damage had been caused' by wetting in tho course of transit to the docks, °and the goods had been -stored there for any time up to three months, as had been stated sometimes happened. If that was the case a clear bill of lading should not have been given, and the ie° sponsibility after having done so must rest with the ship. Unfortunately there had been no positive evidence as to whether the damage occurred on the ship on which the goods were in the custody of defendants or otherwise. On the other ittuiU, there was not even evidence of no repairs on the ship during the voyage or that the damage was not done by salt water. The result was that the plaintiff’s goods were admitted to have been received by the defendant in apparent good order and condition, and those that were tho sueir-ct of the action were discharged in a damaged and unmerchantable state, ihe deieu-dants were not called upon to show how the goods were damaged, but t.m onus was cast upon them of proving that the damage did not arise whilst the goods were on the ship or in their cusuKiy, or ttsafe.it came within the exception of tho_ hill of lading. His Worship did not think defendants had discharged that onus, and had come to the conclusion that plamliSa had established their case. Mr A. C. Hanlon, who appeared for defendants, asked His Worship not to enter up the amount of judgment till next month. He* said that he arranged this with, Mr S. Solomon, K.C., who appeared for the plaintiffs, because, whatever way judgment had gone, there would probably have been an appeal. His Worship said judgment would be entered for plaintiffs at a time to be arranged. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O, plus the amount of judgment*