LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS

Southland Times, Issue 17664, 23 February 1916, Page 6

LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS

DAMAGED CARGO SOLD. JUDGMENT AGAINST U.S.S. CO. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, February 22. Julgment was delivered by Mr Riddle, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today in a claim for damages arising out of the stranding of the Corinna r on Barrett’s Reef on sth August last. An important point regarding the liability of shipowners was concerned.

The plaintiff was James Smith Fox, store-keeper, of Okato, New Plymouth, and the defendants the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd. Plaintiff stated that 20 sacks of ryegrass seed and ten sacks of cocksfoot seed were shipped in good order and condition at Lyttelton for conveyance to New Plymouth. The defendants delivered only one sack of cocksfoot seed, and without his consent sold the remainder at a price much below its real value. Consequently lie claimed £9G 3s 5d damages.

Defendant’s counsel submitted that the company did all that a reasonable person could be expected to do in tho circumstances: that the condition of the cargo did not warrant attempting to dry it, and the only course left open was to sell it as quickly as possible. He also stated that there \was considerable difficulty in communicating with the consignee. The law relating to the sale of damaged goods under circumstances sucli as those disclosed by the evidence was, said his Worship, laid down in the case of the Australian Steam Navigation Co. v. Morse, which held that to justify the. sale the captain had to establish: The necessity for the sale: (2) inability to communicate with the owner and obtain iris direction. In the present case Air Riddell thought that the circumstances warranted the sale of the damaged grass seed with some urgency, hut he also thought that with reasonable expedition defendants had sufficient time to communicate by telegraph with plaintiff and advise him of the position. Even if plaintiff had had an opportunity to take steps to improve the condition of the seed, it was doubtful what proportion of it could have been saved, but defendants failure to advise him of what they proposed doing with it deprived him of the opportunity either of acquiescing in their proposals or dealing with his property in some other way. He thought defendants were liable for damages, but a correct estimate of these was by no means easy. He fixed the amount at £2l 10s (including 30s paid into Court). Judgment was given accordingly, with costs amounting to £ll 7s.