PILFERING OF CARGO

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue 173, 19 August 1919, Page 2

PILFERING OF CARGO

A SENSIBLE DIMINUTION

iPilfering on th a .waterfront-.has. ac* cording to Wellington imports, showed a sensible diminution during 'the last few months, consequent upon steps that have been taken to keep a stricter eye upon the suspected sources of the trouble in Wellington. Ini conversation with a Dominion reporter one Welling* ton merchant s-ated that prior to the war, there was comparatively little pitfering, yet he had always taken the ! precaution to guard against losses by insuring against pilferage, for which he hiad paid 2s 6d per SSIOO. ISo slight hadT bean! his firm’s, tloepes o[n that account that he had seriously considered the matter of ceasing to insure against such losses, but even whilst be was deliberating as to the course he would take, serious cases of pilferage came one after the oriier, and through the rate of insnmnoe had) increased by 100 per cent, it had paid t£) pay it. (Giving instances a® to the extent of the Buffered' he said that one case containing £9O worth of goods had been found to contain, only 30s worth, and! beyond stuffing the case with brown paper, the thieves had taken no other precaution to make up the weight of the stolen goods. Th another instance a- case which contain - ed very valuable goods had been despoiled by the pilferer having- knocked a hole in the case, and then reaching in with his hand! had' abstracted the goods. Fortunately he had only felt in the one direction. Had he ‘ changed! hands he would ’have found some -of the most costly goods the firm had ever imported. In another instance the whole top of the case must have -been lifted off, as the goods it contained_ originally were hermetically sealed in a zinc inner case, and that with all its contents had; 'entirety disappeared—the case w%. empty. The merchant who afforded the fore* going information! complains about the clause in the bills-of-ladlng of Hometrading shipping which provides that the shipping companies were only responsible for lost goods up to £5 per cubic foot and rip to £IOO for a .single package. That might have been a fair provision, he admated, previous to ‘-he war but the companies concerned' hadi taken no cognisance of the fact that the invoiced price' of goods had increased by 200 or 300 per cent, which had increased the value of [nearly every package to over the stipulated’ £IOO the 1 lore on'' which was not- recoverable. This was a Aery sor® point with importers, who could not see why the shipping companies shduid take advantage of circumstances brought about by the war. The only way out of the* clause in question was to see that when goods wer e packed in England not more than £IOO worth (invoice price) should be placed in any one package, which was hardly a convenient practice for the Home people owing to the shortage of wood for case-making.