DAMAGED PAPER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16025, 17 September 1915, Page 5

DAMAGED PAPER.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHIPPING COMPANY LIABLE.

Reserved decision was given by Mr.' Justice Hosking yesterday afternoon in the appeal case, New Zealand Shipping Co., Ltd., appellants, against Messrs. Wilson and Horton, respondents, in connection with the liability of the company for damage done to rolls of paper shipped from Montreal by the steamer Star of the Garter to Auckland.

Dr. H. Dean Bamford appeared for the' appellants, and Mr. H. P. Richmond for the respondents. Respondents, who were plaintiffs in the original action before Mr. E. Page, S.M., claimed £101 damages from the company, j The magistrate found that a structure j erected to cover the doorway of a com- I partment in which the paper was stowed was inadequate to meet the weather that might reasonably be anticipated, and that, in respect of such structure, the vessel was nnseaworthy. Therefore, the company was liable for damage done. The only question raised upon the appeal, said His Honor, was whether there was sufficient evidence before the magistrate on which a conclusion could be reasonably come to that the steamer was unseaworthy at the commencement of the vovo<»e. There was no question that the damage occurred through the entry of sea water. It did so, either because the structure was not watertight at the outset or because it became weakened in the course of the voyage, either by the ordinary -working of the snip or by some violent impact. It was admitted that the structure was repaired in the course of the voyage. The ship produced no evidence as to the date when the sea water was discovered"to have cot in, or as to the condition in which the structure was then found to be, or whether the damage followed upon or was caused by any specially heavy sea, or otherwise, or, indeed, as to any of the attendant circumstances. The nature of the repairs showed thai what it was thought necessary to guard against was the entry of water where the steam pipes passed through the bulkhead', " and that that was the weak spot. j " I should have thought," continued His [ Honor, " that proof that sea water had j got in where the steam pipes passed through the improvised bulkhead, that it had been found necessary to strengthen the protection in that quarter in the course of the voyage, coupled with the absence of evidence that the damage followed upon some unusual weather or sea, would be sufficient for a valid inference that the structure was either not watertight at the commencement of the voyage, or could not stand up against the ordinary working of the ship. There was, however, further evidence. . . . The magistrate would have been perfectly justified in preferring, as I do. the evidence given by Mr. Walker as to the nature of the structure. Mr. Walker found nothing holding the ends of the short pieces of horizontal sparring where they came against the casing except the cement. The sparring was aD out of line, and filled in with small pieces of wood. . . . There was some evidence that the structure in a specially exposed part was not calculated to effectively keep out sea water. One is only concerned with the question whether a" prima-facie case was made out that the structure was unfit at the commencement of the voyage, or. to nut it another wav, whether there was sufficient evidence of that fact to go to a jurv. I think there was ample evidence. The appeal is therefore dismissed with £7 7s costs, and disbursements to be paid by appellants to respondents."