THE SHORT SHIPMENT CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3461, 13 October 1913, Page 6

THE SHORT SHIPMENT CASE.

JUDGAIENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. An interesting judgment was delivered by Air W. A. Barton, S.AI., on Saturday in the case of the Canterbury Steamship Company, Ltd. (Air Stock) v. Dalgety and Co., Ltd. (Air Nolan). The judgment read : “The plaintiff claims (1) that on or about the 2-sth day of Alarcli, 1913, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to carry' as freight for the defendant from Gisborne to Lyttelton by the s.s. Petone, a steamship belonging to the plaintiff, a full load of sheep, consisting in number of 1500 or thereabouts. (2) That the defendant shipped certain sheep by the s.s. Petone but only to the number of 122 S or thereabouts at the freight rate of 2s 6d per sheep, hut refused and neglected to ship the balance of the full load namely sheep to the number of 272 or thereabouts although the plaintiff was ready and willing to carry the same. (3) That by reason of the breach of contract by the defendant the plaintiff company has suffered damage to the extent of £‘34 computed at the rate of 2s 6d per head loss of freight on 272 head of sheep. AVlierefore the plaintiff claims to recover £34.” His Worship dealt with the evidence and proceeded:

“It is clear from the evidence that the company were aware of the carrying capacity of the ship, and that 14G4 sheep were shipped by the defendant company on the previous trip, and plaintiff had therefore, when requested to send the ship to ■Gisborne for a load of sheep, in the absence of anything to the contrary being said by defendant. reason to believe that there would have been a full load of sheep ready for shipment on her arrival. The evidence is that only 1228 were shipped on the trip in question. Defendants contend that owing to the sheep being larger than usual, that it would have been unsafe to have slopped more than were put on board. The captain’s evidence is that he saw the sheep put on board and that he could have with perfect safety carried at least 300 more than were shipped by the defendant on the occasion in Question, and I must take it hat he is better competent to judge than the cdier witnesses. The full carrying capacity of the ship was 1000 and that being so it appears to me unreasonable to say that she could not have earned safely more than 122 S even allowing that they were of extraordinary size. There is considerable conflict as to whether any complaint was made by the captain of the small shipment. Mr Puflett said that Mr Reddell informed him fliat they were only shipping 1228 and that he thereupon called the attention of the captain to the number, wiho told Reddell that there were not enough. Mr Reddell denies absolutely that any complaint was made to him by the captain or any other person. I am of opinion, however, that some complaint was made, and : t's only reasonable to believe that it would have been made under the circumstances. The captain says that Mr Pilmer ,vas present when he complained of the short shipment, but atter hearing Mr Pilmer’s evidence in reply, who savs that he was not in town on the Wednesday or Thursday, 9th or 10th April, and produced his diary tu corroboration of his statement, I am of opinion that the captain is mistaken, it is possible that he mistook someone else for Mr Pilmer. Mr Pilmer said when lie asked for the ship to be sent to Gisborne that he did not intend to put on board more than 1300, and that being so the defendant, company is in my opinion to blame for not informing the plaintiff that it was only intended to aJiip 1228. Had this been done it is probable that it might not have been considered sufficient inducement for plaintiff to have sent the ship to Gisborne, or arrangements may have been made to fill her up with other freight. The previous shipment numbered 1464, and there is no evidence of any complaint by the plaintiff of short shipment on that occasion, and that being so I must assume that the number was considered a satisfactory load. In those circumstances I am of opinion that plaintiffs are entitled to recover as if that number had been shipped and carried to their destination. Judgment will therefore be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of £29 10s, being at the rate of 2s 6d per head for 236 sheep, with costs of Court £1 14s, witnesses’ expenses £l, solicitor’s fee £2 12s, Christchurch evidence £2 9s 6d.”