QUESTION OF AGENCY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19239, 1 August 1924, Page 2

QUESTION OF AGENCY.

ALLEGED PILLAGE OF CARGO. IMPORTANT CIVIL ACTION. A civil action of importance to shipping companies and importers occupied the attention of Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court all day yesterday. The case was brought under the Sea Carriage of Goods Act, 1922, and was one in which Bing, Harris, and Co. (Ltd.), Dunedin, proceeded against Keith Ramsay, Dunedin, the alleged agent for the steamer Pukaki, claiming £43 13s Gd, being the alleged loss the plaintiffs sustained by reason of the alleged failure of the defendant to deliver certain goods. , Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for plaintiffs and Mr A. N. Haggitt for defendant. Mr Sinclair said the claim was one made under a contract of carriage between representatives of the steamer Pukaki and Bing, Harris, and Co. Under this contract it had been arranged that two large wooden cases were to be brought from Auckland to the plaintiff company in Dunedin. It would be proved that the cases contained drapery goods. Upon arrival in Dunedin one oa so was found to have been damaged externally, and a considerable amount of pillage had occurred. The articles of clothing had been contained in cardboard boxes, and it would be proved that when the cases left Auckland they had been carefully packed. Plaintiffs had a system whereby white cloth was pasted around the cases to assist in detecting pillage. There were also iron bands about the cases, and in the present instance one of the cases showed evident signs of having been tampered with. The cloth had been broken in several- places, and of the iron binding bad been cut. He contended that the pillage took place after the case was packed in Auckland. ■ The case in question was exhibited in court. George Knipe, storeman, Bing, Harris, and Co., Dunedin, stated that on October 9, 1923, he received two cases from his firm in Auckland. The case in court was brought to the warehouse in the afternoon, and witness sent it back to the wharf, as it bore signs of pillage. The pillage tapes were broken, the hoop iron was broken, and a board in the centre of the case had been reversed. The case was sent back immediately. Witness had seen the case before, it having been received from Japan in the first place. It had been packed with goods and despatched to Auckland, and it was then a strong case. There was a piece of wood missing from one side, but this did not make the case any the less sound, and a block of wood was placed inside the case for security. The day after sending the case back to the wharf witness saw it again, when it was opened. The goods at the top of the case had not been tampered with, but a number of the boxes lower down had been emptied, broken, and torn about. Entry had been made through the aide of the case where the board had been reversed. To Mr Haggitt, witness admitted that it would be possible for the pillage tape to be rubbed off or broken by the cases coming in contact with other cargo. He would not say the tapes were useless. Douglas Davies, manager, Empire Carrying Company, stated that on October 9, 1923, he received instructions from Bing, Harris, and Co. to convey two caeca from the wharf. Ho went to the wharf in company with his carter, and got them late in the afternoon. He remembered remarking that the case in court was a shabby one. If he had noticed the broken bands he would not have taken the case. Witness later went back to the sheds with the case, which was not accepted by the storeman at Bing, Harris and Co. William Cyril Arthur, carter, employed by the Empire Carrying Co., gave corroborative evidence. After the luncheon adjournment the Magistrate recalled the first witness, George Knipe. The magistrate asked if there were any waterproof lining in the case. Witness replied that it was a paper lining, and this had been tom at the aides. Edward Steven Gale, clerk in the Customs Office, stated that on Octozer 9, 1923, he received papers from the Pukaki signed on behalf of Keith Ramsay, which showed him to be agent for the ship. With regard to the Pukaki, witness said it was registered in Melbourne. To Mr Haggitt, witness said he knew the vessel was registered in Melbourne because he had seen the inward report of the ship when she first came to New Zealand, and also by a statement in the Shipping Register. Nigel Oliphant, shipping clerk for Bing, Harris, and Co., stated that early in October last he received some papers and the bill of lading for two cases, which were being brought from Auckland by the Pukaki He received the delivery note from Keith Ramsay, and gave it to the firm’s carter. Witness received a report from the storeman that one of the cases showed signs of pillage, and on October 10 ho made an examination of the case. The examination revealed empty boxes, broken boxes, and articles scattered about. The evidence of three witnesses taken in Auckland was taken as read, and this concluded the case for plaintiffs. Mr Haggitt stated that according to the evidence of the witnesses in Auckland, the cases were not new ones, and he contended further that prima facie evidence that the goods were in the case was not enough; it should be positive evidence. Ho pointed out that the evidence taken in Auckland was most contradictory, and remarkable for tie length and detail given after an elapse of nine months. John Frederick Pool, shipping clerk for Keith Ramsay, stated that he received a Jotter from A. G. Flannham (Ltd.), Auckland, early in October, asking if it wore possible to get any cargo. Mr Sinclair said he objected to the letter being read, as Mr Haggitt should have called the principals who wrote it in Auckland. The Magistrate upheld the objection, and it was not allowed to go in as evidence. Continuing, witness said Keith Ramsay was agent for the Pukaki in Dunedin. The firm got 21 per cent, commission for its efforts. It dealt through Frankham (Ltd.), Auckland. He did not know who owned the ship or where it was registered. Witness was presort at the examination of the case alleged to have been pillaged. He thought it quite possible to have sprung the boards and extracted articles through the aperture thus made. To Mr Sinclair: Witness said his firm performed all duties as agents for the Pukaki. The vessel had not been to Dunedin since October ao far as witness knew. A costume could' have been taken out of the case, but it would probably have been damaged. Mr Sinclair: Do you seriously suggest that you could get a costume through an aperture one inch wide? Witness: Yes. Witness said he did not notice the reversed board on the case. Keith Ramsay, shipping agent, stated that the Pukaki was a coastal steamer. When it was on the run he did not know its owners or where it was registered. He had found that out subsequently. He had had no communication vdth the owners, all business being transacted through A. G. Frankham and Co. To Mr Sinclair: Witness said he had no funds and could not meet the claims. Fnankham and Co. had told him not to recognise the claim. John Philip Mason stated that he was acting as foreman for Keith Ramsay on October 9, but ho had nothing to do with the receieving of the two cases. He denied having spoken to Knipe and Davie. He was not in the shed at the time. Witness considered it quite possible to spring the case and extract articles. To Mr Sinclair: Witness said he would not swear that lie did not speak to the two carders. He did not think a blouse could be extracted through o.n aperture made in the case, and leave the cardboard box undamaged. Mr Haggittt said he would move for a nonsuit as section 7 of the Sea Carriage of Goods Act did not apply in this instance; that the matter was not ono of agency; and that a specific contract had been entered into between A. G. Frankham and Co. and Keith Ramsay. The right person to sue was Frankham, and it was he who should meet the claim. He submitted that tile Act did not apply to Keith Ramsay, and he was not the agent but a sub-agent appointed by the agent, A. G. Frankham and Co. After lengthy argument the Magistrate said he would reserve hia decision.