ALLEGED PILLAGE

Evening Star, Issue 19412, 22 November 1926, Page 6

ALLEGED PILLAGE

CASE OF LADIES 1 COSTUMES CLAIM AGAIfIST SHIPPING COMPANY Described as containing “ladies’confectionery;” but really containing something quite different from what those words would imply, a case which arrived at Dunedin in July by the steamer Tainui was the subject of a claim for damages before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning. Messrs Bing, Harris, and Co-, represented by Mr J. S. Sinclair, were the plaintiffs, and Messrs Dalgety and Co., for whom Mr A. 0. Hanlon appeared, were the defendants Mr Sinclair said the claim was for £54 4s 8d damages in connection with a contract to carry goods from Hamburg to Dunedin. Mr Sinclair said a number of cases were mentioned in the bill of lading under which the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company undertook to carry the goods in good order and condition from Hamburg to London and from London to Port Chalmers. Evidence would be brought to show that the cases were not in good order and condition when they were taken from the wharf at Dunedin, . The Magistrate: The case is described as containing “ ladies’ confectionery.” ~ , , . . Mr Sinclair said the case contained women’s costumes. Mr Hanlon: You don’t get them for the same price as confectionery. 1 know that. Uilr Sinclair said the 1 onus was on the shipping company to prove that the goods were in the case at the time it was delivered. The tally clerk had given a receipt on the wharf for the case, but it had been held in other claims that that was_ of no consequence. The case was in the court lor the magistrate to see. It bore external evidence of having boon tampered with. When the carter took delivery he was in a hurry and did not take much notice. The case was sent to Messrs Bing, Harris’s warehouse with other goods. As soon as the signs or pillage were noticed, the case was sent back to the wharf—within half an hour. The manager of the carrying company was on the wharf when the case left and when it was returned. Evidence was given by David Andrew Russell, shipping clerk for the plaintiff company, who said that owing to influenza it was several days after the ship arrived before he got his shipping papers clear and was able to get delivery of the goods. Witness saw the case when it was to the wharf. It bore evidence of having been tampered with. Sidney Albert Front, delivery clerk, employed by the Harbor Board, said he was in cnarge of the shed in which the cases were landed. There was no possibility of anyone opening a case and tampering with it while witness was there. The case appeared to be in good order and condition when he took it in, and in the same condition when it went out of the shed. To Mr Hanlon: There were about twelve doors in the shed. Between 12 and 1 o’clock the shed was locked, and witness made sure that everyone was out before it was locked. “Couldn’t a .thief play hide and seek with you among the pile of goods in the shed?” asked Mr Hanlon. Witness maintained that that was impossible. He claimed that he made sure that everyone was out of the shed when he locked up. Mr Hanlon: “ Then you are a cleverer man than I thought.’ “ What is the number of the case i asked Mr Hanlon, as ho pointed to it on the floor of the court. “3.110,” answered witness. _ “ But didn’t you accept a receipt tor 3170S?”—Yes. Witness claimed that one of the figures meant for a one looked like a seven. Dauglas Davey, manager of the Empire Carrying Company, gave evidence of the removal of several cases ex the Tainui, including a case numbered 3110. This one had been tampeied with, a piece of board being loose, whilst the iron band round the case had been broken. He had always found the carter who removed the cases to be honest and reliable. , To Mr Hanlon: A part of witn&ss s duties consisted of examining the drapery cases at the wharf to see that they had not been pillaged. W bust he was “ having an argument ” with the carter about the number of the case concerned in the present action it had been taken away. He had taken the number of the case to be “ 3,170,” and he gave a receipt for this number. _ Witness later admitted he had not signed tor the case. . . , Richard Rogers, a earner employed by the Empire Carrying Company, said that the case had not been interfered with -by anyone. , , , To Mr Hanlon; Witness admitted having “ brushed up ” his evidence. He could not say whether Mr Davey had examined the cases or not, though he was generally very careful to do so. James Henry Duncan, manager of Taploy and Co., said that every care was taken to see that there was no pillaging in the sheds. There was no chance of a man opening up a case in a shed. Witness admitted to Mr Hanlon that the shed had been broken into on various occasions. The main concern was not the description of the cases, but the actual number of packages taken away. Fleming Watson Knight, storeman for Messrs Bing, Harris, and Co., said ho recollected the pillaged case coming into the warehouse. Witness noticed hook marks on the case, and a piece of the hoop-iron was broken; whilst one of the boards was out of alignment.. Witness refused to take delivery, and, as far as ho knew, the carter took it back. There were empty cardboard boxes in the case, the boxes being torn. This suggested that the contents had been removed by lifting up the board. To Mr Hanlon; It was so obvious that the case had been pillaged that witness could not _ understand anyone giving a clean receipt for it. Other evidence was called by Mr Sinclair, and the case was adjourned till Friday morning, at 10.30.