AN IMPORTANT POINT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17099, 23 February 1916, Page 9

AN IMPORTANT POINT.

LI AIM I/I TY OF' SHIPOWNERS:

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, February 22,

Judgment was delivered by Mr Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day in a claim for damages arising out of tlie stranding of the Corinna on Barrett's Reef on August 5. An important point regarding tlio liability of shipowners was concorned. Plaintiff was James Smith Fox, storekeeper, of Okato, New Plymouth, and defendants were the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd. .

Plaintiff stated that twenty sacks of ryegrass seed and ten sacks of cocksfoot seed were shipped in good order and condition at Lyttelton for conveyance to New Plynioutn. Defendants delivered only ono sack <jf. cocksfoot seed, and without his consent sold the remainder at a'> price much’ below its real value, consequently he claimed for £l)6 3s od damages.

Defendants’ counsel submitted that the company did all that a reasonable person could be expected to do in the circumstances, that the condition of the cargo did not warrant attempting to dry it, and that the only course left open was to sell it as quickly as possible... He'also stated that there was considerable, .difficulty in communicating with the consignee. . The law relating to the sale of damaged' goods under circumstances such as those disclosed by tlie evidence was. said bis Worship, laid down in the caso- of the Australian Steam Navigation Company v. Morse, which held that to justify a sale the. captain had to'establish (l) the necessity for sale, (2j, inability to communicate, with the owner and obtain bis directions. In the present case, Mr Itiddell thought that the circumstances warranted -the sale of the damaged grass-seed with some urgency, but be also thought that-with reasonable expedition defendants bad sufficient time to communicate by telegram with the plaintiff and advise him of tlio position. .Even if plaintiff bad bad an opportunity to take steps to improve the condition of the seed, it was doubtful what proportion of it could have been.saved, but defendants’ failure to advise him of what they proposed doing with it deprived him of the opportunity either of acquiescing in their proposals or dealing with Improperly in some other way. He thought defendants were liable for damages, but a correct estimate of these was by no means easy. He fixed the amount at £2l. 10s (including 30s paid into Court). Judgment was given acordingly, with .costs amounting to £ll ~s.