A SHIPPING CLAIM.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 58

A SHIPPING CLAIM.

ALLEGEDLY STOLEN GOODS In the case of John Edmond (Ltd.) v. Murray. Roberts and Co. (Ltd.) in which £26 8s 6d was claimed in connection with a portion of the contents c-f a case ex Tainui which was alleged to have been stolen, Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., on Thursday gave his reserved judgment in. the Magistrate’s Court. His Worship said that he was of opinion that the preliminary objection that the plaintiff's claim was not made within time was fatal. The case containing the goods was discharged from the ship on November 25. 1924. and formal claim was not made until December 24. when liability was disclaimed by defendants on the ground that they held a clean receipt from the Harbour Board. Plaintiff contended that there had been a waiver of notice of claim, but the evidence did not support that contention. Plaintiff's shipping clerk had stated that a few days after the case had been landed he had called the attention of the assistant stevedore for the shipping company to the case and later examined the case with Galbraith, stevedore for the shipping company. There was a conflict between Crawford and Galbraith on the one hand and M‘Ara as to what had transpired, and as to the condition of tho ease, but M’Ara agreed that Galbraith had said he held a clean receipt from Taplev and Co., and could not take any responsibility. M‘Ara reported this to Mr Edmond, who then saw Taplev and C'o., but they did not admit the claim. Then followed a further communication between Mr Edmond and Galbraith as a result of which the case was removed to plaintiff’s warehouse ou December 6. Mr Edmond had stated that plaintiff might take delivery without prejudice and that Galbraith would examine the case as soon as he could without preiudice. Some 10 days later the case was opened in the presence of Miles, Anderson. Edmond, and Galbraith, when Galbraith took a note of the missing articles. Next day Mr Anderson, who represented the insurance company, was invited to the office of defendants, where the claim was discussed hetween Miles. Galbraith. and Anderson. Anderson said that Galbraith offered to go to Gftv-fifty in the claim which he refused. That was denied by Galbraith, who said he had no authority to make anv such offer Wha evidence there was there of waiver of notice of claim? Liability had been denied at tho outset and reli-ince placed on Taplev and Co’s clean receipt, and the subsequent examination of the case was stated to be without prejudice. If that examination had not been without prejudice the position would have been different, but plaintiff could not. claim that what was dono without preiudice was an abandonment or waiver bv defendants of their rights. Plu’”tiff would therefore be nonsuited, with costs (£4 13s).