SUPREME COURT.

Colonist, Volume VIII, Issue 793, 2 June 1865, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor Judge JoiKMuff, and a Special Jury.]

DAKAOBB JOB nr/ÜBY TO SHIKP OS BOARD SHIP.

Caton v. Ferguson. —This was an action brought by James Henry Caton, cattle dealer, against Robert Henry Ferguson, master of the steamer Airedale, for loss and damage done to a flock of sheep, 335 in number, on the voyage from Picton to Manukau, through, as was alleged, the negligence of the defendant in conveying the sheep. Damages laid at £296 10s. This sum represented damage to 325 sheep at 10s. a head, loss of 10 others smothered on board the vessel, £40 for plaintiff's expenses in Auckland, £25 for man's wages and expenses, and* £54 for plaintiff's loss of time, 18 days, at Auckland. The evidence showed that plaintiff had paid freight to the agent at Picton for 301 sheep ; and that the captain had stated to him on the arrival of the steamer that he ras short of pens. The sheep however wer* put on board, but it was found at Manukau that 535 sheep had been put on board, being in excess of the number in the agreement. It was shown also that there was an absence of proper accommodation for the sheep ; which caused crowding and smothering, and that in taking the sheep from the hold at Ifelson, they were taken up in a »ling by meant of the steam winch, twos and threes being put together in the sling, which experienced witnesses proved was irregular and calculated to injure the sheep. Some objections were taken by the defendant's counsel Mr. Tr»v«rs, on the averment that th« Company were in the position of common carriers, as this was a special contract; but this was over-ruled. Stress was laid on the overcrowding of the ship through plaintiff having placed on board more sheep than had been agreed to be taken by the Company. The Judge on summing up also referred to this kst named circumstance, •nd to the manner of tlingin# the sheep on board ship, and touched on the duty of the Company, as carriers, to tt*ke proper care of the £*ods and chattel* committed to their charge. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff damages £40; the overcrowding by excess of number* evidently weighing with them in mitigation of damages. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Pitt; for defendant, Mr. Travers.