FRUIT CARGO SPOILED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17942, 18 November 1921, Page 7

FRUIT CARGO SPOILED.

SHIPPING COMPANY SUED.

FAILURE OF THE ACTION.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.

An important decision regarding the liability of a shipping company for damage sustained by perishable goods through delay in shipping, was embodied in a reserved judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Herdman at the Supreme Court yesterday. W. S.,Moral (Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Bell), a Ilindii fruiterer, and others, had claimed from tho Northern Steamship Company, Ltd, (Mr. Meredith), the sum of £53, for damages for tho loss of 50 cases of bananas, which wera spoiled by non-shipment on the Rarawa on March 25. These bananas we.r 0 part of a shipment on thc.Navua ou March 21, and Moral took delivery of his cases on the wharf the following day. Tho banana* were railed to Onehunga next morning. Tho Barawa was advertised to sail at 4 p.m., the advertisement stating that cargo would be accepted if taken to tho railway on Tuesday or accepted at the vessels fido up to an hour before sailing. Although tho fruit was in an insulated van on the wharf from 8 a,m. it was not loaded. Owing to tho Easter holidays intervening, the fruit was loft there until fix days later, when tho Railway Department notified that tho bananas wcro spoiled by the'heat. Mr. Meredith called evidence that the Rarawa was 3i hours late in arriving at Onehunga, and her time for departing was postponed until 5 p.m. Tho tnick containing tho fruit in question was one of a train of tracks of fniit which had been loaded during the afternoon. Owing to the dangerous state of tho bar, the captain had to leave before, five o'clock or roiss the tide, Tho truck in question was of 20 tons deadweight, packed with general cargo at tho doors and the fruit at tho ends. As it would take about an hour and a-half to load, tho captain decided to sail

Obligations ol Shipping Company. His Honor, after describing the business arrangement which enabled the company to keep check on the quantity of cargo to be sent forward from Auckland, detailed the events on the day in question. The lato arrival of the ship at Onehunga meant shorter time for shipping the cargo. No one could complain if the movements of tho company's vessels were erratic, for the safety of tho ship and the passengers must, of course, outweigh everv other consideration. In the time available, it was impossible for the ship to load and take away all the cargo tendered, and someone had to suffer. In the limited time at their disposal, however, the servants of the company did all in their power to ship all the cargo tendered. ' Coming to the question of liability for loss due to delay, His Honor said the stamping of the "please receive" note created no legal obligations, as the shipment of goods accepted by the company depended on. conditions existing at Onehunga when the goods arrived there. The j company's advertisement offering unconditionally to receive cargo created no obligation to receive cargo no matter what the weather conditions were. It was quite true that the defendant company, holding itself out as a common carrier, was subject to tho common law liability of a carrier for hire and was bound to accept all goods reasonably tendered for conveyance, but this statement was subject to important qualifications. A common carrier was not bound to carry goods if his ship was full or if the risk was extraordinary he could refuse to accept goods not tendered at a reasonable time.

Judgment for the Defendant.. The Rarawa, on March 23, had passengers, luggage, mails and perishable cargo on board, and were His Honor to lay down the principle that a ship, whose safe navigation across a dangerous bar depended upon leaving port before a certain hour, was bound to wait until all cargo tendered had been taken on board, then a timetable could not bo observed, the public would suffer inconvenience, and shipowners would be seriously embarrassed in their business.. The cargo offering on March 23 was loaded expeditiously and all the available time, excepting 10 minutes, was occupied in loading goods. Considering all the circumstances, His Honor held that those responsible for tho receipt of the cargo did all they could bo expected to do within reason to receive the goods tendered, and the defendant company had a reasonable excuse for not rereiving plaintiff's goods. Judgment was therefore for the defendant company.