GOODS IN WHARF STORE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16672, 17 October 1917, Page 8

GOODS IN WHARF STORE.

♦ HARBOUR BOARD'S LIABILITY. I MAGISTRATE'S DECISION. A judgment of considerable importance to shipping companies and harbour boards was given by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday in a case" in which the Shaw-Savill and Albion Shipping Company, Ltd. (Mr. Lowrie), claimed from the Auckland Harbour Board (Mr. Campbell) the sum of £60 3s 9d, the value of a cask of rennet which, while being convoyed from the lower to the upper floor of one of the Harbour Board's sheds, fell from the conveyor and was destroyed. In giving his decision, Mr. Cutten said, counsel for plaintiff had argued that the • damage was due to the neg.igence of one of the board's employees. Under one of its by-laws the board had the option to require that imported goods in the sheds, or goods there for export, be stored in the upper floors of sheds Nos. 14 and 15, on the Queen's Wharf. Ii the cask were being removed to an upper floor in accord- • anoe with the by-law it would, as con-! tended by the plaintiff, be in the care of ■ the Harbour Board. On July 29, 1915,; however, the board issued a circular stat-' ing it had been decided that in future all i goods left in the sheds would, after 14 days, be removed to the top floors of J the sheds on the Queen's Wharf; the. goods to be removed into these floors by. the shipping company. A receipt would then be given for them by one of the board's officials. Counsel for the Harbour Board bad contended that the goods were being removed by the plaintiff in accordance with this circular. The plaintiff had

contended that the circular was ultra I vires, that the board''could only administer its by-law when, as in the case tinder adjudication, it was dealing with a matter in respect of which it was authorised by the Harbours Act, 1808, to make bylaws,, and had, in fact, made one, and that v was not authorised to make special His Worship said he was ; unable to agree that the goods at the trims j of the accident were in the care of f.he board, on the grounds merely that the' board had no power to make regulations I that the goods must be removed by the ship, However, a Harbour Board official' was in charge at the foot of the elevator, the goods were put on it tinder his direction, and he tallied, the goods, all of which was in accordance with the by-law. He held, that the goods were in the care' of the defendant board. On the question of negligence, he decided against the board, on the grounds that its official, who was in charge of the shed, insisted on the cask being placed on the elevator, notwithstanding the hesitation of a waterside worker engaged, and that when it was on the elevator be recognised that, it was not on properly and safely, and ■ cautioned those above to exercise especial ', care. There was no contributory neirligence on the part of any of the plaintiff's servants, and the defendant board must, therefore, be held liable. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, with costs.