A MISSING TRUNK

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10976, 11 August 1921, Page 5

A MISSING TRUNK

SHIPPING COMPANY’S LIABILITY. AN INTERESTING DECISION. Reserved judgment in the caso of J. MoFarlane and the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd., was delivered by Mr E. Page, S.M., yesterday. The claim was for £SO, the value of a cabin trunk and contents consigned from Wellington to Westport, which was not delivered. The defendant company bad paid £lO in court and denied any further liability. The evidence was to the effect that in April, 1920, the plaintiff had booked from Liverpool to Wellington, and on the back of the passenger’s ticket issued was a clause undertaking to forward the plaintiff and a specified quantity of luggage to Westport at the defendant’s expense. Ftar the plaintiff, it was contended that the contract must he divided into two parts, the first covering the voyage from Liverpool to Wellington governed by England law, and the second, the coastwise journey here, ruled by New Zealand legislation. There was a provision on the ticket that the defendant should not -be liable for loss of luggage beyond the amount of £lO, unless the value of it was declared and extra freight paid. No such declaration was made. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that this provision was a special contract within the meaning of the Mercantile Law Act, 1908, and invalid as it was not signed by the plaintiff. The magistrate decided that, as the sontract was entered into in England, the law of that country governed the transaction. The form of the contract hod been approved by the Board of Trade, ami, in his opinion, the clause limiting the liability of the defendant was a valid one. Therefore, j dgment was entered for the defendant, with costs £3 3s. Mr (,’ Taylor appeared for the plain Mffs and Mr E. Evans for tho defendant company.