MORTON T. ANDREWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume X, Issue 3696, 15 September 1873, Page 3

MORTON T. ANDREWS.

To the Editor of the Heeald. Sie, —In your issue of the 11th inst. there appears the above case, Morton v. Andrews, master of tho schooner Leslie, for alloged damage to a cargo of maize, carried by the defendant in the schooner Leslie, from Clarence River, N.S.W., to this port. As one of tho witnesses for defendant, I am not surprised at the decision arrived at, but, at the same time, I most distinctly question tho justice of the verdict. The claim was based on the fact that the vessel had no dunnage, but it was not shewn that the damage arose from the want of dunnage, neither was it shewn, nor can it be shewn, that dunnage would prevent the cargo from heating, which was the whole cause of the damage ; nor can it be Bbewn by any Act or regulation in regard to British shipping that dunnage is ever carried for any other purposo than to protect tho cargo from leakage and bilge-water. In this particular case, the stained bags for which damage was claimed, were all on the top tier, caused by the maize heating and the BWeat falling from the decks back on the top bags. Captain Philip Jones clearly explained thus in his evidence : "It would be much safer to carry a cargo of grain on the Bkin in such a vessel as the Leslie than it would be in many vessels that carry grain to this port with two feet of dunnago in their bottom. I know several vessels belonging to this port that carry their cargoes on "the skin ; for instance, the brigantine Coronet, schooner Zior, brigantines Ryuo and Flirt, and I have no doubt others could be named. I will also instance two Australian vessels'that carried valuable cargoes of wheat and flour to this port, from Adelaide, without dunnage, viz., the barque Coorong, some three or four years ago, and the brig Oberlin, last July. The Oberlin did not stain a bag. All the dunnage in her would not be of the slightest use if any damage had arisen; bat Captain Sinidt knew the quality of his vessel, and was "not afraid of damage. I fancy a voyage from Adelaide to this port is across seas twice tho distance of the Clarence River. If tho top tier of her cargo was damaged, and not the ground," sir, (I moan the Oberlin, as she was consigned to mo,) 1 Bhould consider it most unreasonable to biume the want of dunnage in the bottom. Anyone in Auckland acquainted with the grain trade at home (I have no daubt thera_ are many) must know that mostly all grain is

carried in bulk, and without any dunnage whatever, even the air-holes being canvassed over to prevent the grain getting among the tinabera. The schooner Leslie (according to the sworn testimony of the master and mate) was specially built to carry grain on the skin without the aid of loose dunnage; and the appearance of her hold when the cargo was discharged and while discharging corroborates their statement. The sm> veyors on both sides could not help testifying to the fact that the cargo did not receive _any damage from bilge-water, or any leakage in the ship. It is well known that dunnage is required for no other purpose than to prevent bilge-water getting at the cargo in flat-bottomed ships. When the master of a ship knows that his ship "is perfectly tight, and specially built for a certain trade, it would be stupidity on liis part to lumber up hia vessel with a lot tif loose dunnage quite useless to him. If such decisions are to be the rule and not the exception, the knowledge required of masters in the Mercantile Marine will be quite useless to them," or they mußt come to Auckland to learn their dnty. On the subject of freight, the master is taught to know if damage arises over which he has no control, such as the peculiar nature of the goods, even if this iB increased by confinement in the ship, or the perils of the sea (the aot of God), the merchant must bear the loss and pay the freight. He is also taught ts know (even he is supposed to know) that the purpose of dunnage is to protect the cargo from the leakage of the vessel. He (the master) is also supposed to know if he neglects properly to dunnage the vessel, and should the cargo, in consequence of the want of proper dunnage, receive damage from leakage or bilge-water, the owner of the goods will be entitled to set off a claim for damage against the freight, or to recover these from the owner. Not a word here about damage on the top tier. And again, he is supposed to know, in case of' dispute, on discharging his if the surveyor declare the dunnage insufficient, the ship is liable for the damage in the bottom. Mr. Editor, I think it a most wonderful thing that at this port the top tier of the cargo ia supposed to suffer from the want of dunnage ; and at all other ports (whore shipping law is understood), the ground or bottom tier. Ido not hesitato to say that no damage arose from the want of dunnage in the schooner Leslie; and further, that a oarga of grain could be safely carried either in bulk or bags in such a vessel a3 the Leslie, without any dunnage whatever, —the owners of course taking the risk of damage at the bottom. But in Auckland this is reversed; the owners must be made liable for damage arising from the peculiar and heating nature of the goods. The above statements are not more sssortions, but what I am prepared to prove at any time. This being an important case, I trust you mill excuse the length of this letter. —I am, &c., D. H. McKenzie.