IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9321, 16 June 1891, Page 1 (Supplement)

IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

Dunedin, May 29. A Cf-.ee of importance to shippers came before the Resident Magistrate’s Court today, Mr D, M. Spedding being the plaintiff and the New Zeahnd Shipping Company the defendants. The plaintiff claimed £4O damages. Shortly stated, the facts were that Collyns and Co., London, shipped by the Duke of Buckingham certain goods, end reserved the bills of lading, which purported on the face of them that the freight had been paid in London. The bills were sold la the open market, and purchased by Mr Spedding’s ageut. When the goods arrived here delivery was refused by the Shipping Company until the freight was paid. Mr Spedding having sold the goods, paid the freight under protest, both ae to the sum being payable and the rate. There was another case in which pianos were shipped from Hamburg, via London, the bill of lading being stamped “freight prepaid.” Tho Company here gave up two pianos, but retained the others until the freight on the three was paid. Judgment was reserved in both oases.

Dunedin, Juno 12,

An important shipping case, Spedding v. New Zealand Shipping Company, was decided to day by Mr Carew, B.M. The plaintiff presented a bill of lading, but the Company refused to give up possession of the goods till a claim for freight, amounting to £44, had been paid. The plaintiff paid under protest, and now seeks to recover the amount. The Magistrate held that the bill of lading showed there was a debt due for freight from the time tho goods were shipped ; consequently a lien attached from (be same time. If the debt was paid the onus of proof lay with (he plaintiff. There was no provision in the bill of lading to support the defendant’s contention that there was an extra charge when the freight was payable in the Colony. As to the rate of freight, he took the Company’s printed freight rules as a guide, and could do nothing as to the measurements bat accept the plaintiff’s admissions. As to the plaintiff’s claim for delivery of pianos under a bill of lading, he held a through bill of lading from Hamburg to New Zealand, which the Company declined to recognise, except on payment of freights. His Worship held that there was no evidence making the Company a party to (lie bill, or bound by it. Their contention that they merely acted as common carriers between Loudon and Dunedin was a good defence. Judgment would be for the plaintiff on the first count for £l7, and for the defendants on the second count.