DAMAGE TO CARGO.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15655, 25 June 1914, Page 9

DAMAGE TO CARGO.

OWNERS NOT LIABLE. IMPORTANT- LAW POINT. _ .THE BILL OP LADING. JtmfiitEKt on a (point of importance to shipowner* and importers was delivered by. Mr. 0. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday in the case of Joturßtinm and Co., Ltd., against the Shaw, Savill, and Albion; Company,: in which the L sum of £4 17s 6d was claimed for damages to a cist-iron enamel-lined hath. 'The bath was one of a consignment' brought by the defendant company's steamer Matalua from Glasgow in February last; When the consignment" arrived in Auckland it was found that lie. crate containing the bath in question . had been damaged, and the bath itself was broken. When the case was heard on l Wednesday 'of last week Mr. McVeagh moved for a nonsuit on the grounds-that' the' defendant conipany- was absolved ; torn liability by certain clauses in the bill of lading. =;on6 of ; thasb; claiißeß ; exempted the shipping company from liability' for any losß.'atisin| from ''any act,, neglect, fault/ or error, in judgment pari of the• master, mariners,', engineers, refrigerating engin« eers, stevedores,.or others in the "service of the company." , A. second clause pro; tected the company against any damage to, castings, and- a," margumktamped condition; provided \ that the steamer; was not responsible, for " chips, .cracks, breakages,' or 'Joss of pieces of unprotected .or partially protected castings, unless proved to be through -,improper- stowage.'?; ; .. | Mi*. A. reply to the points raised, by .Mr.,, McVeaghj.cQisidered 'that the terms s of; tho;bilt.of lading were much, too general to exonerate the ; &Mp|fiig company, which was plainly. endeavouring to shelter • itself : from >:any.;dama : go;tfl' cargo caused by any means at all.'Ae contended that, ; if the 'evidence for the V plaintiffs proved"that .the. damage had been- caused by faulty, handling :on \ the, ship,, arid he submitted. that it had-done so, then.the' terms of the bill of lading did not exempt; the defendant company. • Mr. Skoltpn also contended that the clauses erred: to' by Mr., McVeagh could be eliminated from the ease", by: section: 300 of the Shipping: and' Seamen"- Act, 1909,. which provided that >such ' clauses /could' be' do-, clared, null arid void if, a>magistrate.considered they were not just' or reasonable. the , course" : of, .his > judgment. ;. His Worship said that no evidenco hadNheeu brought :by tho-plaintiffs to prove; negligence' oft- the .parti of<tho. employees of the defendant company. 'The evidence had merely' proved the damage, which might possibly', have been done, after, the goods left the sbipV; deck or tackle, when the responsibility of the shipowners ended. Regarding, Mr,; Skelton's contention that section 300 of the. Shipping .land, Seamen Act,' 1908,,. be - applied to: the case, His .Worship quoted a judgment >by Bis Honor Mr. Justii&lJonmston on the same luestion, and gave his judgment on similar lines/ The .contract' in the bill of. lading, he said, had:been" drawn .up and ,signed in. Glasgow, and there was no.each law 38 that provided in the Shipping and Seamen Act in English law, .under which the ''contract, had: been ; made and signed. la his opinion, there was nothing in ; the contract to show why it should be governed by the slaws: of; .New; Zealand; and ; the section- referred to could not be invoked for the purpose of destroying, any clause in the contract. .'.. ' . With reference .to Mr. McVeigh's second point regarding 1 the defendant company's liability. s as far as castings were concerned, His Worship said that,/as there bad been proof- that the goods, were improperly stowed; < the 'defendant' company; revive] the .benefit of those clauses in the bill of lading. He; was therefore of opinion that the plaintiffs must bo nonsuited with wstsi ' r s - / .-.'