HARBOUR BOARD BY-LAWS.
AN UNREASONABLE ONE. Fer Press Association. NELSON, Oct, 27. A decision of some importance to harbour boards was given .■'■' by Mr Evans S.M., in a case Rankin v. Motueka Harbour Board., .Defendants, acting as wharfingers under their byhiws, received a consignment of sugar for plaintiff and short '• delivered 40 baps. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract of bailment. The Board offered no defence on the facts, but'relied on their by-laws, which absolved them from liability, and on the tact that no notice of action was given, and that action was not 'commenced within three months as required by the Harbours Act, The Magistrate held that defendants, acting as wharfingers were bailees, and as they had received and charged for the sugar, if tTTe by-laws were intended to relievo them from liability under such ™c*mst™ceajhr? were unreasonable. Section 219 of the Harbours Act did not create a special statute of limitations for;. breach of Harbour Board contracts, but applied onlv to wrongs done in discharge ot their public duty, and no notice, was necessary. Judgment for. plaintiff for amount claimed.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19091028.2.36
Bibliographic details
Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 14042, 28 October 1909, Page 5
Word Count
182HARBOUR BOARD BY-LAWS. Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 14042, 28 October 1909, Page 5
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Timaru Herald. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.