PILLAGED GOODS

Marlborough Express, Volume LIV, Issue 185, 6 August 1920, Page 3

PILLAGED GOODS

A BLENHEIM CASE.

AUCKLAND', Aug. 4.

Judgment was given by Mr Cut-ten, SM., yeserday in the case of U, P. Coles and Co., Ltd., v. YV.Cookc and' .Son, a claim l\<r goods whicli pl-aintifSs .stated wevo delivered to defendants, but defendants claimed that the ease in which the goods were shipped had been pillaged, with, the result that they did* not receive the goods. The facts wer© thvvb boots ordered by the defendants, merchants in Blenheim, were shipped by pliunliffe, but were stolen en route ixom piiLa'ged oasos, and defendants declined to piy i'or boots of the consignment tilvat they did nqt receive. His Worship said defendants maintained that the deliveiy of goods to a (-.a-rrioi- in Auckland wi'.s not delivery to tlit»,m. The agreement by plaintiffe to pay freight to Blenheim was n usual trade concession, and was ■overborne by the fact that defendants had requested plaintiffs to insure the goods en route for them. They contended that insurance- meant insurance iig'iinlit pillage, as well as their risk, but the contract was for insurance against "ordinary insurance," raid that could not be -held to include insui-nnoo .igaiiu.t pillage. He lield tliat plaintiffs had proved delivery, and g:wo judgment lor plaintiffs for the amount claimed, £35 G.-j fid, and £4 18s 6d costs.