MISSING GOODS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 7

MISSING GOODS

PLAINTIFF RECOVERS VALUE. WAREHOUSEMEN LOSE ACTION.

Judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of £195 was entered by Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, at the Supreme Court yesterday, in connection with the action brought by Frank Lloyd Williams and George Killick Williams (Mr T. Young) v. Salmond and Spraggon, Ltd., of Wellington, warehousemen (Mr J. C. Peacock), to recover the sum of £230 claimed to be the value of goods which Were, it was alleged, so negligently stored' and looked 'after that a large portion of them was lost.

This was an action -by two plaintiffs who were the owners of certain goods which were delivered to the defendant cempony for storage or. December 16tb. H2O. When the goods were -handed' over to the plaintiffs on March Ist last it was noticed, that they had "been interfered with, ropes which had been tied round them had been cut and packages opened, and a portion of the goods were missing. The defendant company could give no explanation either for the injuries to the goods or for the short delivery. At the trial the defendant company did not deny that the articles had been received, but; when they were asked to explain why a portion of them was missing they were unable to do so.

In the. course of his judgment, the Chief Justice said that it. had been laid down in several cases that if a custodian fails to explain how goods entrusted- to him have disappeared, the onus is oast upon him to show that he exercised due care in the custody of the goods and in his selection of servants employed at the warehouse where the goods were stored. Sir Robert Stout was of opinion that the onus had not been discharged. No reasonable explanation was given to show how the missing goods were removed from the store, and the only inference to be drawn from this waß either that it was not properly locked and looked after or that some unauthorised person or .persons had had access to it. He was not satisfied that the goods lost were of the value set up in the statement of claim, and he therefore made a deduction from the amount edbimed and gave judgment as stated.