SULTANA SHIPMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10966, 30 July 1921, Page 10

SULTANA SHIPMENT

'L lIM AGAINST SHIPPING COMPANY. QUESTION OP NOTICE. Some interesting features mere con- :• lined in a reserved judgment deliverer, by Mr E. Page, S.M.. in the Magistrate s, ferart Yesterday, in the ease John Orr v. uddart-Parker. Ltd. Mr O. C. alazeii >arb appeared for the plaintiffs and All Y W Blair for the defendants. Ine " -is*, which possessed same important rga! points, was an action in which tne oiai-..-itf claimed the sum of .£33 12s from be defendants for twelve boxes of suli mam shipped at Sydney by the steamer Blimaroa, to be conveyed to WellingtOß , . . The evidence shewed that thirty boxes /ere shipped nt Sydney. ,*riie blimaraH* rrhed at Wellington on May 2»th, 1920. nfl sailed on May 27‘h. In accordance with a practice of the defendants, no rVIv or record was taken of the goods < -’•ceh ?*rged from the vessel on to the wharf. The goods are duyiped ashore nd run into a Barbour Board shed, and ike board’s receipt is often no«£ given or many weeks alter the veisel has departed. In- the present case a receipt as not given uutil nine weeks after the ulimaroa sailed from Wellington, he receipt then showed that U:e number • f boxes were short landed. The magistrate* said it had been decided by the of Appeal in the recent case of Lyons v. U. 1 S. and A. Steamship Comv Ltd., that in circumstances suc-n as the present, the Harbour Board re cr>.cd the goods as agent for the shipowners,'and* Held them as €uch agents. i s> ti the bfroe of a delivery order. Thereafter goods hold by the Harbour Hoard as agents for the consignee, fn the .pieseiu. case the consignee had proved that presentation of his ery order the board could not produce :iis goods. ‘they were not to be found ■here *hey ought to have been if the :.hip had 'delivered them. There waa >othing in the evidence to suggest that Hey even came ashore. Mr Pago was of opinion that the ,plaintiff had mode out a prirna facie case of non-delivery, •nd the onus was on the defendants for ■ceo-unting for the goods. This onu« Had not neon discharged. The bill-of-ading contain* amongst the endorsements thereon a provision that "Any claim for of. or damage to, goods iust be made in writing within «eAen •days from the date each caigo was, or should ’have been, landed, otherwise the same shall not be enforceable.** "It seems to be reasonable,’* remarked His Worship, "that the company should make provision in Its bill-of-lad* ini? to.this effect, und if the time-limit ini,po»d were a reasonable one, probably fho provision would be valid. The matter seems, therefore, to resolve itself into a question of the reasonableness of the time-limit -fixed. In considering this, I think that the court ehould take into consideration the circumstances . known by the parted to at the time the contract was entered into, the accustomed methods ad'-nled. at the port of deliverv, the time usually taken in distally from the shin, the inannci of the ! :«oosal of \\ 'he duvbour Board, and any other relevant conditions known at th© time to exist or to be likely to exist. In my op'nion, the provision chat the loss or damage must be n-teified to the i;»,?:ng connany wjthin seeen •days of the timfr when the goods v.*re la tied, or should have to'on landed, is, in the circurn-stances under which the contract is made, and in the conditions which the contract is to be carried out, cadcuhitod to prevent the consignee from having a reasonable opi>or tuTiity of enforcing hie rights. It is, 1 think, calculated to avoid, and does, in fact, in mar>y cn-tes. nvod tne obligationof the master, officers, agents, and eerv* ants of the ship to core for. preserve, and properly deliver the opinion it is therefore void/ ,, Judgment was given for plaintiff, with ooste. -