AN EMPTY CASK.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12409, 29 August 1918, Page 6

AN EMPTY CASK.

THE LIABILITY OF SHIPPING COMPANIES.

A cn.se of considerable interest was heard at the Magistrate's Court before Mr S. H. M’Cart.hy, S.AI., to-day, when Quill, Morris and Co. (Mr Wright) proceeded against the New Zealand Bilipping Company (Mr Harper) for H47 17s, the value, of the contents of 1 a. cask of brandy belonging to the plaintiff company that had been delivered empty by the defendant company. Mr Wright said that the case was in the nature of a friendly notion brought, in respect of a package that was delivered by the defendant company minus its contents. In November last .Messrs Quill, Morris and Co. shipped at London by a New Zealand Shipping Company steamer 520 packages of merchandise, of which ten wore hogsheads of brandy. Five hundred and nineteen of the packages wore delivered with their contents intact, but one cask of brandy was delivered empty. Mr Wright said that there was a notice on the bill of lading to the effect that the ship was not responsible for the quantity of contents. The defendant company contended that this notice on the hill’ of lading covered them. 'lllis contention raised the presumption that the cask was delivered to them in London empty. However the receipt which the plaintiff company held from the defendant company was'for 5*20 packages, not for 519. and one empty cask. Mr Wright contended that the clause on the bill of lading did not effect the present case. The onus was on the shipping company to prove that it received an empty cask. Ho contended that in these days of shortage of shipping space it was not likely that the master of a ship or a shipping company would accept delivery of an empty cask. There was little doubt, that the contents had been pilfered on the voyage, but their case was not concerned' with that. They had only to show T>rima facie—and the hill of lading showed it—that the cask was delivered to the shipping company, and the shipping company had to prove the • case dame within the numerous exceptions under which they were not liable for the non-delivery of goods. The cask had evidently been tampered with. The Railway Department had given a receipt for an empty cask, and it was the custom for shipping companies to do the same- The defendant company had not clone so in this case. The shipping company contended that the note on the bill of lading had been put there to protect them, because there had probably been some doubt about the cask when shipped. But hero was the important point; If the company could be thus protected against delivering one empty cask, they could be similarly protected against delivering the whole lot empty. Charles Dickinson Morns, .a' director of the plaintiff company, gave formal evidence as to the fact that the cask was delivered emptyTo Air Harper: His company had not paid duty on the cask. The company nad had goods pillaged on previous occasions. and had always paid duty in such cases.

Edwin Egbert Patten said lie had taken delivery of the goods on behalf of the plaintiff company. The cask in question was empty when delivered. Outwardly the cask looked perfect, but on making an examination be found that gimlet holes had been made in the bilge and plugged up with hard material-

ho Mr Harper: Ho could not say whether or not the strap across tho head of the cask wa<? then in its proper place. The stays towards the head, were in ■ proper condition.

Harry Hepworth Parsons, in charge, ot the shipping and Customs depart,ment of Quill, Morris and Co., said, lie had refused to take' delivery of the 9 ns ; r ‘ H wa s in good condition except lor the holes, and in appearance it was not different from the other nine casks. George Thomas Bryant, railway clerk, produced a receipt showing that when the Railway Department received the goods from the ship the cask in question was empty. Mr Harper said that the statement of claim abated that the cask had been pilfered before delivery to the railway. The clause on the- bill of lading said that t<ho shipping company was hot responsible for the quantity of goods, and there was anotrier clause giving the exceptions, such as loss by leakage and breakage, when the company was not responsible. However. Joss by pilferage was not included in these exceptions. 'Pile shipping company had been brought into Court first on the ground of pilferage on board, and the plaintiff company contended that the defendant company was responsible for the contents in that case. They would prove, however, that no possible pilferage could have taken place on hoard. The cask might havo been delivered at London empty or the pilfering might havo taken place before the cask was put on board._ Further, he would show by expert evidence that the filling in the holes was not the kind used when goods were ■ pilfered in transit. The cask had been stored under lock and key on board, and further, it had been stored below a largo number of other packages. So it was impossible that the cask had been pilfered on board. Further, the Customs bad not charged duty on the cask, as they would have done had they considered that the cask had been pilfered. He would show that the cask had leaked on the. voyage. Captain Colonna. Lloyd’s surveyor, said that he had inspected the ship bringing the goods in which tho cask was included. All hatches were closed and the casks were under lock and key. On the first inspection he made of the chamber in which the casks were stored ho saw no signs of anything being disturbed. After some of the goods were discharged the empty cask was found on the bottom tier. Ho had examined the empty cask and found the plugged holes. He had rarely, seen the filling used in tho holes. It was not the sort of material that could be obtained on a ship. If a sailor had pilfered the cask he would probably have bunged the holes up with wood. Ho considered that tho cask had notf been pilfered, but that the contents had been lost by leakage. ‘When a cask was pilfered tbo holes were usually made in tbo bottom and not in the bilgo as in this case.

lo Mr Wright: lb was impossible that the cask had been pilfered. The storeroom had been opened at Auckland ami Wellington. The chamber would have been accessible at both places, and the. cask could have been got at after a lot of cargo had been shifted- The cask had been stored in the heart of cargo. There was no sign of leakage on the floor, but the liquor could easily have fined on a long voyage. H. Elliot, local manager of the New Zealand Shipping Company, gave formal evidence.

S. Stokes, clerk in the employ of the shipping company, said he had examined the chamber in which the casks had been stored. The sawdust on the floor was wet. and there was a strong smell of spirits. If the cask had booh pilfered the pilferer would have had to go back several limes in order to empty the cask, and there would have been ■some liquor left in the cask. right: It, was impossible that the cask had been pilferedillifim Alexander Afiller, loreman stevedore said that in bis opinion the cask could nob hav 0 beet, pilfered in the place in which it w ? ,s stored. The cam was adjourned until Tuesday, at —3O p m,, when legal argument will be tieard.