MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12419, 31 July 1902, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, JULY 30. (Before Mr E. It. Carew, S.M.) Judgment wn& given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:-Lady RoxbuHi Gold Dredging Company v. Alex. Colin Murray (Cromwell), claim £10, for calls on 50 shares, cost? (8s); Liones3 Gold Dredging Companv v. Arthur King (Naseby), claim ±'1 5s for one "call on 2a shares, coats (3s); Massey-Harris Company v. Patrick Kaiie (Ardgowan, near Uamaru), claim £-1 5s 5d 011 a dishonoured proBussary note, judgment »as given for £2 5s 5d 1 -2 having been paid since the issuing of the summons, costs (lis); seme v. Samuel "Wright (Richmond, neat Cliristcimrcli), claim £3 lis ?! fO U s > lament v,-«a given for £1 lis 8d thei difference between this and the amount claimed having been paid,, with'coats (12s), Mr Cook appeared for the plaintiff company; A. rhilhps v. Clias. Bailey, claim £.3 10s 3d for bread supplied, judgment was given for the full amount claimed, less £1 paid into 'tinr' ?c StS r (G s ; Da!gi:ly niul Ca v - Jolm VUllis (Souln Dunedm), claim £14 2s id for Eooda, costs (3.5s Gd); W. G. Robertson v. Alex MPhee (waseby), claim i'3'lls id for fish W?ilr 1 °? for plaintiff; John ™ In tosh v. Joseph Miller (Ophir), claim £i l fl s v f ? r g? ods . judgment for £3 2s 7d, the balance Mvmg been paid, costs (lis), Mr Brown Dnric for plaintiff; same v. Jesoph Jones (Owaka), ° mr 1 8s for meot ' cos ' 3 (Ms). O 'if Co "™ is9ioner ot Taxes v. James Steele Smith.-Ckini 13s for income tas.—Defendant I hied a defence,, but not within the prescribed time.-Judgmcni. for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (Gs). The New Zealand Hardware Company v The Tyser Jyine of New Tork.-Claim £18' Is for damage to goods shipped from New York-Ms' him for plaintiffs, and Mr Ho3king for defen-j'l'nt'.-In this case, heard a few days since Ins Worship gave judgment as follows;—'"j mnk the nonsuit point raised by Mr Hoslrin» I s , ?. to "'e action. Clause 19 of the Bill ol -L.Sd.ng provides that 'any claim for short delivery of oi damage done, to goods, and all other claims whatsoever to be made at port of discharge; and at no other port, and the goods mo shipped and this Bill of Lading granted subjccf. to this express condition, and no claim lor damage will be admitted unless notified in writing befqre the goods are token receipt of' , *[ Kt >,?° cla ™ was made before the third cwy alter the goods were delivered, and then the claim was made, not at tho port of dischar-e----aamely, Port Chalmers, but to the ship's agents at Dunedin. The railway tally clerk gave the usual form of receipt, with notes against seven casks of ojl, that all were leaking and two were fmpty, and that three stares were broken: but it-is impossible to call that » claim, and ns tally cier<£ lie would have no autlioritv to make a claim. There is a. question whether the clause is valid to defeat a claim for ncligrace, but I am not prepared to say it is not On the merits, th; main question is whether there, is evidence to show that the damage was caused by negligence in stowing or handling tho.goous, because in tho absence of affirmative proo. of negligence the ship is not liable. There is cvidenca that one oil cask, which was nearly empty, shows pressure on the bting stave, and also ;n the bottom stave, those staves being both pressed ill. A witness for the defendant savs that that might have been causcd by the boons slackening from not being kept in position with dogs, I cannot see that that is at all a feasible explanation, but it points distinctly to groat pressure on the bilge of the cask, and a breach of the well-known rule to keep the bilge free, or, as put in Stevens on Stowage, page 103* ' see that btlllg hfles are all up, bilges free, and heads clear. The same writer savs: ' The beds should be thick enough to keep the bilge clear ■when placed near the heads,'commonly called the quarters, which is their proper position, being the strongest part of the cask.' Had the bilge of this cask been kept free there would, of course, have been no marks of pressure upon it, cither top or bottoin. The damage to this cask was evidently caused by bad stowage. As to the other cask of oil, there te nothing to show affirmatively that its condition was due to negligence and it is quite possible the leakage was caused by the hoops loosening either from want of protection with dogs or from the workin* of the oargo in bad weather. With regard to°the stoves. tbere is simply th? acknowledgment in the Bill of Lading that they -were shipped m apparent good, order and condition, and the evidence tint when discharged into a railwav truck they were broken. How or when thev became broken there .is no evidence. It is for the plaintiffs to prove negligence if they can but considering the class of goods (cast iron' necessarily brittle and easily damaged), that the stoves wefe • not in oases or protected ir any way. and that there is,evidence that the average breakage in shipments of unprotected stoves is 10 or 12 per cent., about the same a s m this shipment, I cannot say I cm satisfied negligence ha 3 been proved. Tho damage io the one cask of. oil, say, 40gal at 10 1-5:1, is 80s. Plaintiff will be nonsuited on the question Oi want of proper notice of claim villi costs Oi action amounting to £5 Is."