FREIGHT CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13796, 8 July 1908, Page 5

FREIGHT CHARGES.

AN IMPORTANT POINT. REFUSAL TO DELIVER GOODS. A case of interest, to the mercantile community was, advanced another - stage ;at the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. R.; W. Dyer, i:'..M., when the suit fof :} Percy ; Spencer and Co., printers, against the, Tyser shipping line was further heard. The' plaintiffs' claim set'forth that they had purchased a bill, of lading for goods shipped from England, but delivery had been refused by the shipping company until £7 12s was paid on account of the unpaid freight, as they (the shipping company) claimed that they had a right of lien over the property. The amount was paid under protest by plaintiffs, who accordingly lodged a claim for £7 12s, with £10 damages, asserting that the defendants had no right of lien. , - , Yesterday's proceedings,took the form of legal argument . and the quoting of authorities. - ._•' ;.'".; • ' '■'.. ;' ; . .■/';';■■ ','/:'\[".-:" ' Mr. Cotter, for the defendant company, quoted a large number of authorities and judgments to show that freight payable in advance was still in effect freight, and that the moneys agreed to be pa?d when the goods were placed on board was really intended for payment of the carriage of the goods, although not conditional on; the due completion of the voyage. He held that they had a lien on such a contract. Under the Mercantile Laws Amendment Act the plaintiffs stood in no better position than the original shipper, and were further liable: thereunder for the unpaid freight y and further, by virtue of the bill of lading, there was given to shipowners a special right of lien tor the amount of freight. . Dr. Bamford (for plaintiffs) argued that the evidence showed that the shipowner looked to the consignor alone for the freight, and it was this practice that the. mercantile community depended on in dealing with bills of lading. This was, moreover, the natural and reasonable meaning of the bill of lading, which provided that the freight should become due in London and be paid in cash upon shipment. The evidence showed that the practice here was to insist upon cash before the bill was handed to the shipper, and in face of that practice if a bill ! was wrongly issued before payment it could j not be contended that an innocent endorsee j could be held liable. Mr. Dyer: Then do you suggest the bill of lading was improperly taken out of the office? , • " , '-■- ■ , Dr. Bamford: Either that or defendants chose, to give credit to Messrs. Wincott, Cooper, and Co., and when that firm failed endeavoured to get the money at the other end of the world.Dr. Bamford quoted at length a j&umber of authorities on the question of freight pay- j able in advance. . Mr. Dyer intimated that he 'would require ! time to consider the case, and he therefore j reserved judgment. -i