IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 827, 16 August 1864, Page 4

IMPORTANT SHIPPING CASE.

POTTER AND OTHERS V. HOULDER AND OTHERS, In the Court of Common J;leas, Loudon, before Chief Justice Erie and a special jury, the following case was recently disposed of:—. The plaintiffs, it appeared, are large shipowners at Glasgow, and the defendants are the well known shipowners and ship brokers of London, whose lines of vessels trade between'this country and Australia. The action was for Ll7O. balance of freisht of the plaiutifis ship Giant's Causeway, chartered to the defendants in February. 1883, for Australia. The defence was a setoff on account of demurrage agreed to by the charter party to be allowed to fche charterers, if the shrp was not ready to load by a particular day. The clause in the charter was—*' The ship to proceed to a loading berth in the London Dock if required by the charterers (the defendants) and to be ready to load by the 25th of March, and if nofc ready on thafc day the charterers to be allowed demurrage at LlO a day. to be deducted irom the freight;' Notice wa> given to tbe defendants on 21st March thafc the ship was ready. The ship was then lying at the buoys in the dock, a_d not at a leading berth. There was a conflict of evidence as to whether she was in a condition to lead, and fche plaintiffs contended further that they ought to have had a notice from the defendants to proceed to a berth. It was stated by the defendants that they refused to accept the above notice, because the ship was nofc ready, and thafc the next thing they heard of the matter was not until a notice, on 14th April, from the captain, who had on that day returned from a visit to Scotland, and finding.the ship still not begun to be loaded, sent a notice, in iguorancS of what had been done before, that the ship was then ready to load. No notice was given by the defendants requiring the ship to proceed to a berth, but they stated that they had never in any instance given such notice, although they had chartered hundreds of ships in a similar way, and a very large number with the plaintiffs. It was also stated that they required all their ships to go to their berths in the London Docks, and that the plaintiffs were well aware of that, andhad always sent their ships to a berth without notice, ifc being the practice' of the shipowner to apply to the dock authorities to have the shi;> placed in a berth. Tlie ship in question afterwards, about the 23rd of April, did in fact proceed to one of the defendnnt'sloadihg berths without any further notice from the defendants. The defendants claimed the demurrage at LlO per day, on the ground that the ship was not ready at a loading berth by the day stipulated. The Lord Chii-f Justice told fhe jury that it was a condition precedent under the clause of the charter for the defendants to give notice that they required the ship to proceed to a berth,.if they so desired," and that the question was whether, on the 25th of March, the ship was ready to proceed to a berth and take in cargo. N The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffi, for Ll7O and interest.