MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19249, 13 August 1924, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tur.sn.w, August 12. (Before. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default 'in the following (Ltd ) v. Edward OBnen, £o 9s sd, lor goods supplied (costs £1 12s Bd>: W H. Hamilton v. William M'Donald. £2l .Is., for rnonej paid an.! lent (costs £1 la);, Hr -v. B. V. btram v llenrv Cameron, judgment for costs (6s), Robert Steehen v. Frank CoutU (Beiwmont), JA ;ts, on :m account stated (costs "V ' Douglas Bernstein and Co. (Ltd.) v. Job Faithful (Stirling), i'l 6s, for goods supplied (costs IT os Gd); A. S. Paterson and Co. (Ltd.) v. J. Davies (1 ua (a pc re), £2. !•». [or <><Kids suuolied (costs £’. Us); Samuel Bros? v. Carl* "Robertson (Pukehiki). £W» l» s 7d, balance for goods supplied (costs ft- R>3) - Plm-nix Company (Ltd.) v. Geo. V . Graj (Newton, Wellington), £2 6s 6ck fm ~s supplied (costs Us); Wm. M Comic t and Son v. Henry Barnett tecott M 1 » ad, balance on account stated (costs it s 61). Board and Lodging—Mrs f. S Snow .Joseph Manning, claim £2l 10s, u,iUu.ee of an amount owing: by defendant to pUm.itt for the board and lodging of defendants two children from June'3, 1031, to February 2, I<P24, Mr Neil appcnre<l for plaintm ana Mr AV, b. iloorc lor defendant.—Mr Xeil stated that the position was that defendant, and his wife, had boon living apart for some years and the children had, with the exception ot one occasion, been under the cave ot, tne mother. Prior to boarding them with plaintiff the children had been boarded by the mother at Hcsgiol, but (hey became dissatisfied there and the mother took them away, and placed them with Mrs Snow a,l bawvere’ Bay at las a wool; for each child. This was paid by defendant when the children were hoarded at Mosgicl. Defendant had paid Mr Irwin the sum of £lO on account. He began paying in September when the children bad been boarded with Mrs Snow. The total amount had been £ol 10a a-nd three payments of J£lo each had been made, leaving a'balance of £2l 10s.—In the course of cross-examining plaintiff’Mr Mooro remarked that defendant refused to pay because he objected to the children being with Mrs Snow .Mr Bartholomew; He wall have to show that they wore held there against his will.—Further evidence was given by Maria Agues Manning, mother of the children.—Mr Moore said defendant did not object to keeping his children, and had alwavs kept them. He had keen working on the "Vest Coast. He had had trouble on three or four occasions in regard to bis children. His wife had put (hem into the Salvation Army Home, and defendant had taken them away and arranged with his daughter to provide a home, and they were removed from there -without his consent, and taken to Mrs Gibson’s, and then to Sawyers' Bay. His fa-milv bad written to him, saying ' that they did not want to be considered paupers, and he, had paid the money. He had a decided objection to the home they were in .on account of what his daughter had told him. It was the interference by these women that had been the cause of the trouble all through. The attitude of the mother was shown by her putting the children in the Salvation Army Homo. It did not speak well for her. Defendant considered that the trouble wae due. not so much to his wife, us to Mrs Snow.—Defendant, m the course of his evidence, complained of the language used iif the house of Mrs Snow, and further evidence was given by Miss Forrester, his daughter.—The Magistrate taid defendant had never taken any steps to express his dieapprr.i at of the childr.m staying nt Mrs Snow's. Judgment must be given for the amount claimed, with costs (£! 13s). Pillaged Cargo.—Bing, Hams, and 00. (Ltd.) v. Keith Ramsay, claim ,£ll 11s 6d. — Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for plaintiffs and Mr X. Haggitt for defendant. —Mr Bartholomew, in giving his reserved judgment, said the claim was fov goods alleged to have been pillage., white being carried on the a.s. Pukaki from Auckland to Dunedin. The evidence for plaintiff established that the case containing the goods was delivered to the ship at Auckland in good order and condition, but on delivery at Dunedin it was found'to have been pillaged by the removal of a portion of the side of the case, and the goods mentioned abstracted. The defence set up was that there was no liability on the defendant, as he had acted only as subagent for Frankheim (I.UL), Auckland), who were the agents in New Zealand for the owners. Apart from the Sea Carriage of Goods Act, 1922, it was clear that defendant would not be liable. The ship was registered in Melbourne under instructions from Frankheim (Ltd.). Defendant looked after the receiving and discharging of cargo at Dunedin, which was the customary duty of agents, and accounted to Frankheim (Ltd.). Defendant had also signed the inward manifest as agent for the ship, and had to sign the Customs papers for the clearance of the ship at Dunedin. The liability under the Act was imposed on the agents of the ship, not on the agents of the owner. In the present case defond-ant acted as agent of the ship at Dunedin, and shippers were not concerned with his relations with the owners of the ship. If a person acted as agent of a ship, then in his (Mr Bartholomew’s) opinion, he incurred the statutory liability as such agent imposed by section 7 of tho Sea Carriage of Goods Act. The agent could protect himself against that liability, as the proviso of section 7 provided for his cxoncra tion from liability on his giving notice declining responsibility to the Collector of Customs 21 hours before the departure, and in (hat event the ship was not allowed its clearance until a bond was entered into to answer any claims. Plaintiffs were entitled to recover, hut. not the full amount claimed. It wes admitted that liability under the bill of lading was limited to to per cubic foot. Plaintiffs' witnesses stated that the cose contained 25 cubic, feel, and that onefifth of tho contents had been pillaged. Mr 1.-'ooSe, defendants' shipping clerk, estimated the quantity pillaged a! three cubic feet. He however, took no measurements, or otner particulars with a view to chocking amount. Judgment would accordingly be given for plaintiffs for £25, anti costs (£ll 7s 6d).