IMPORTANT BILL OF LADING DECISION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1010, 10 July 1891, Page 14

IMPORTANT BILL OF LADING DECISION.

(British Trade Journal, April 1.) On the 2l»t ult. the Court of Appeal delivered a deferred judgment in a case of considerable interest to shippers and shipowners with regard to exceptions in bills of lading, argued several weeks ago hefore the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Bowen and Fry, on appeal from a judgment of Mr Justice A. L. Smith after trial without a jury. Messrs Steinmann and Co., of Liverpool, and with them a Buenos Ayres firm, shipped several cises of cotton goods by the steamer Anjer Head, belonging to the Angier line, from Liverpool to the River Plate. On the packages being taken out of the hold when the ship arrived at its destination it was found that the contents of one had been stolen. Tire shiopers sued the shipowners for its value, and they pleaded at the trial an exemption in the bill of lading, which Mr G. Barnes, Q.C., for the appellants, said had been expressly drawn with a view to meeting a difficulty that had arisen in the case of Taylor and the Great Western Railway Company. Following the ordinary words of exemption, •* the act of God, the Queen’s enemies,” there had been added, “ robbers or thieves of whatever kind, whether on board or not. ’ The learned judge found that the goods were purloined after shipment at Liverpool, either by the stevedore or his men. He (Mr Barnes), for the defendants (now the appellants), submitted, but his Lordship held to the contrary that the felonious act came within these words of exception, and so he now argued, and that therefore the verdict in favour of the merchants should be set aside. Iu tha course of the arguments bearing on the exceptions, the Muster of the Rolls said it must be taken that the stevedore was the servant of the ship, and in these circumstances the old rule was plain enough. He was once asked at Livsrpool to draw a bill of lading which would absolve shipowners from everything, but he told them that- iu his opinion if they did this they would get no goods to carry, and the Courts would no doubt say that if they wanted not to be liable for anything it must be put in very clear language indeed. The Court, at the conclusion of the arguments, taking time to consider their judgment, Lord Justice Bowen on Saturday read the result, saying that the Master of the Rolls agreed with the judgment now to be read in principle but was not responsible for the language in which it was couched. The bill of lading, his Lo'd-hip said, must be construed according to principles long observed. Exceptions in bills of lading were not intended to excuse carriers from the obligation of due care, and the shipowner must do all in his power to avoid even excepted perils. The bill of lading in the present instance did not, in His Lordship's opinion, relieve the shipowner from responsibility for theft committed by those in the service of the ship. Consequently he agreed with the judgmeut of the Court below, and the appeal must be dismissed. Lord Justice Fry having briefly stated the grounds on whicli hegconcurred with this decision, the appeal was dismissed accordingly.