IMPORTANT BILL OF LADING DECISION.

Timaru Herald, Volume LII, Issue 5163, 9 June 1891, Page 4

IMPORTANT BILL OF LADING DECISION .

fn lho 2lßt, March tin (,'ourt of /ippoal (Imperial) delivered n di furred j rdr/.-notit m a Ore of considerable interest to shippers and shipowner* with regard to exceptions m hills of lading, argued several weeks ogo beforo the Mr_«ter of tho Bolls and Lords Justices ISowon and Fry, on appeal from the judgment, of Mr Ju-tice A. L. Smith aftor trial without a jury. Vlessrs Stcitimann and Co.. of Liverpool, and with thorn a Buenos Ayred firm, shipped sevoral o>i'> It of cotton goods by tho stearrer Anjer Mead, belonging to tho Angier lino, from Livorpool to the Bivor Clato On tlio packages being takon out, of the hold when l.lio ship arrived at ita destination it was found that tho contenta of ono bad boon .tolen. Tho shippers sued the ship-owners for ifco valuo, and they plouled at the trial an exemption m tho bill of lading, which Mr G Barnes, (J 1 .)., fr.r tlio appellants, eaid had been oip re -rdy drawn with a view Lo meeting a difficulty thru, had arisen m tho caso of Taylor and thn Groat Wcßtern Bailway Company. Following the ordinary words of

exemption, " tho act of God, tho Queen's | enemies," there had been added " robbers j or thieves of whatever kind, whether ou , hoard or not." The learned judge found I that the gooda wero purloined alijr .hip- , ment at Livorpool either by the Bte-edore or his men. He (Mr Barnes) for lhe defendants (now the appellanti), submitted, bub his Lordship held to tho contrary, tbat the felonious aot came within these words of exemption, and go ho now argued, and that therefore the verdict m favour of the merohants Bhould be Bet aside. In the course of the arguments I bearing on the exceptions, tbe Master of tho Rolls said it must be taken tbat tbe etevedore was tho servant of the ship, and m theße oircumstancoß the old rule was plain ouough. He was once asked ut Livorpool to draw a a bill of lading whioh Bhould absolve shipowners from' everything, but he told theiu tbat m his opinion if tbey did this they would get no goods to carry, and the courts would no doubt Bay that if they wanted not to be liable for anything it must he put m very clear longuage indeed. The Court, at tbe conclusion of tho arguments, taking time to consider their judgment, Lord Justice Bowen read tbe reßult, Baying that the Master of the Bulla agreed with the judgment now to be read m principle but was not responsible for the language m which it was couohed. The bill of lading hie Lordship said, must bo c'rnsirued acoordiug to principles long observed. Exceptions m bills of lading wero not intended to etcu.e carriers from tbo obligation of due orre, acd tbe shipowner muat do al m his powor to a.oid even excepted perils. The bill of lading m tho present in_tanuo did not, m his trordship'e opinion, relieve the shipowner from reoponnibitity for theft committed by thoso m tho rierv ; ce of tho ship. Consequently lm agreed with tho judgment of the Court below, and the appeel must bo dismissed. Lord Justice Fry having briefly stated lho grounds on which ho concurred with thi* decision, the appeal wai dismissed nceorclingly.