THEFT OR LEAKAGE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17882, 30 August 1918, Page 7

THEFT OR LEAKAGE.

CASK CONTAINS NO BRANDY,

MERCHANTS SUE SHIPPING

COMPANY

A case of considerable interest was heard at tho Magistrate's Court before Mr S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., yesterday, when Quill, Morris and Co. (Mr Wright) proceeded against the New Zealand Shipping Company (Mr Harper) for £47 17s, the value of the contents of a cask of brandy belonging to the plaintiff company that had been delivered empty by the defendant company. Mr Wright said that tho case was in tho nature of a friendly action brought in respect of a package that was delivered by the defendant company minus its contents. In November last Messrs Quill, Morris and Co. shipped at London by a New Zealand Shipping Company steamer 520 packages or merchandise, of which ion were hogsheads of brandy. Five hundred and nineteen of tho packages were delivered with their contents intact, but one cask or brandy was delivered empty. Mr Wright said that there was a notice on the bill of lading to the effect that the ship was not responsible tor tne quantity of contents. The defendant company contended that this notice on the bill of lading covered them, lms contention raised the presumption that the cask was delivered to them in London empty. However tho receipt which the pkmtiff company held from the defendant company was'for 520 packages, not tor 519. ana one empty cask. Mr Wright contended that the clause on the bill of did not effect the present case. Hie onus was on the shipping company to prove that it received an empty cask. -tie contended that in these days of shortage of shipping space it was not likely that the master of n ship or a shipping company would accept delivery of an empty cask. There was little doubt' that the contents had been pilfered on the vovagc, but their case was not concorned with that. They had on y to show i>rima facie—and the bill of lading showed it—that tho cask was delivered to the shipping company, and tho shipping company had to prove the case came within the numerous exceptions under which they were not liable for the non-delivery of goods. The cask had evidently been tampered with. The Railway Department had given a receipt for an empty cfisk, and it was the custom for shipping companies to do the same. The defendant company had not done so in this case. The shipping company contended that the note on tho bill of lading had been put there to protect them, because there had probably been some doubt about tho cask when shipped. But here was the important point: If tho company could be thus protected against delivering/>no empty cask, ther could be .similarly protected against delivering the whole lot empty. ' Charles Dickinson Morris, $ director of the plaintiff company, gave formal evidence as to the fact that the cask u'i's delivered empty.

To Mr Harper:* His company had notpaid duty on the cask. The company had had goods pillaged on previous occasions, and had always paid duty in St*cl"l C'ISGS* Edwin Egbert Patten said he had taken delivery of the goods on behalf of the plaintiff company. The cask in question was empty when delivered. Outwardly the cask looked perfect, but on making an examination he found that gimlet holes had been made in the bilge and plugged up with hard mar trlil.

Harry Hcpworth Parson, in charge of tho" shipping and Customs department of Quill, Morris and Co., said he had refused to take delivery of the cask. f George Thomas Bryant, railway clerk, produced a receipt showing that when the Railway Department received the goods from the ship the cask in question was empty. Mr Harper said that the statement of claim stated that the cask had been pilfered before delivery to the railway. Tho clause on tho bill of lading said that the shipping company was not responsible for the quantity of goods, and there was another clause giving the exceptions, such as loss by leakage and breakage, when the company was not responsible. However, loss-by pilferage was not included in these exceptions. The shipping company had been brought into Court first on the ground of pilferage on board, and the plaintiff company contended that the defendant company was responsible for tho contents in that case. They would prove, however, that no possible pilferage could have taken place on board. The cask might liavo been delivered at l.ondon empty or the pilfering might have token place before tho cask was put on board. Further, he would show by expert evidence that the filling in the holes was not the kind used when goods were pilfered in transit. Hie cask had been stored under lock and key on board, and further, it had been sIM-ed below a large number pf other packages So it was impossible that the cask had been pilfered on board. Further, the Customs had not charged dutv on the cask, f><\ they would have done had they considered that the cask had been pilfered. He would show that the cask had leaked en the voyage. Captain- Colomia. Lloyd's surveyor, snid that he had inspected tho ship bringing the goods in which the cask was included. All hatches were closed and the casks were under lock and key. On the first inspection he made of the chamber in which the casks were stored he saw no signs of anything being disturbed. After some of the goods were, discharged the empty cask was found on the bottom tier. He had examined the empty cask and found the plugged holes. He had rarely seen tho filling used in the holes. It was not the sort of material that could be obtained on a ship. If a sailor had pilfered the cask he would probably have bunged the holes up with wood. Ho considered that the cask had not* been pilfered, but that the contents had been lost bv leakage. Allien a task was pilfered tho holes were usually made in tho bottom and not in die bilge as in this case. To Mr Wright: H was impossible that the cask had been pilfered. The storeroom had been opened at Auckland and Wellington. The chamber would have been accessible at both places, and the cask could have been got at after a lot of cargo had been f-bifted. The cask had been stored' m the heart of cargo. There was no sign of leakage on the floor, but tho liquor could easily have <Tried on a long voyageH. Elliot, local manager of the New Zealand Shipping Company, gave formal evidence. S. Stokes, clerk in tho employ oi the shipping company, said ho had examined the chamber in which the casks had been stored. The sawdust on the floor was wet, and tdiere was a strong smell of spirits. If the cask had been pilfered the pilferer would have had to go back several timeh in order to empty the cask, and there would have been somo liquor left in the cask. To Mr Wright: It was impossible that the cask bad been pilfered. William Alexander Miller, foreman stevedore, said that in his opinion the cask could not have been pilfered in the place in which it was stored. The ca-30 was adjourned until Tuesday, at 2.30 p m.. when legal argument will' bo heard