WATER-SPOILED GOOPS.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 April 1922, Page 2

WATER-SPOILED GOOPS.

SHIP ESCAPES LIABILITY. NO PROOF AS TO TIME. April 17. Reserved decision was given by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court in an action for £6d 3s 9d damages brought by George Court and Son, Ltd., drapers, against the captain and owners of the steamer Piako. The claim was in respect of a case of woollen goods alleged to have been damaged after shipment from England by the steamer Piako.' The damage was caused by fresh water. Mr. McKean said there was no evidence as to the condition of the goods at the time of shipment except the admission in the bill of lading that the case was in apparent good order and condition. There was evidence that a considerable amount of sweating occurred on the voyage, but the ship was apparently well constructed, and there was no evidence of any improper stowage. The contents of the case were damp on arrival, but the evidence did not show that this condition was caused by sweating, although it did show it was possible for the damage to have been caused in this way. The question, to be edcided was whether the admission in the bill of lading of the receipt in apparent good order and condition of the case containing the goods relieved the plaintiff from the necessity of adducing some evidence as to the condition at the time of shipment. After quoting authority Mr. McKean said he must hold, in this case, that the bill of lading did not contain any admission with regard to the contents of the case. Plaintiff could not therefore succeed unless he gave prima facie evidence that the goods were not damp when shipped. The agreement that for the purpose of obtaining a refund of Customs duty the goods should be considered as damaged to the extent of 40 per cent, of their value was not one which the magistrate considered he should have regarded as binding on the defendants on their part. Plaintiffs did not know the prices at which the‘damaged goods were sold. They should have known this, and their claim should have been for the difference between the ordinary retail price and the price at which they actually sold. Plaintiffs were nonsuited. Costs were allowed defendants.