LOST AND DAMAGED GOODS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16543, 29 September 1921, Page 7

LOST AND DAMAGED GOODS.

CARRYING COMPANY’S RESPONSIBILITY.

Tho duty of a carrying company* regarding the delivery of goods and ensuring the consigner against loss was the subject of a reserved judgment delivered at tho Magistrate’s Court this morning by Mr S. IC. M’Carthy, S.M. Tho case was one in which Mary Gow, a widow of Christchurch, sued the New Zealand Express Coy. for £B2 Us 9d for damage to goods belonging to plaintiff which tlie defendant company undertook to carry from Eltham to Christchurch.

TIIO Magistrate said that plaintiff was the widow of a solicitor formerly practising at Eltham. She was unacquainted with business details but was intelligent, and possessed the qualifications incident to an ordinary education. Plaintiff alleged that her desire was to enter into a contract with defendant company to carry her goods from Eltham" to Christchurch and to ensure them against all damage during transit. She communicated with th© company’s manager at New Plymouth and he forwarded her a consignment note which, however, plaintiff alleged she never read nor the endorsed general conditions. What the company was lequested to do and th© duty it accepted was to carry plaintiff's goods from Eltham to Christchurch and to ensure her against loss. Doubtless this was inconsistent with come of the endorsed genera) conditions 011 tho consignment rote. The explanation of this was that the defendant company entered into a special contract with plaintiff inconsistent with those conditions. Plaintiff packed her own goods and the packing was skilfully and carefully carried out. A servant of the company inspected the packages and made no complaint as to the packing. When the goods arrived at plaintiff’s residence in Christchurch five packages were broken and some of the goods damaged. Two of the packages were missing, but later one was found and delivered to plaintiff. Tho other was still missing. The breakage and loss of goods occurred whilst they wore under the company’s exclusive control, said the Magistrate, and no explanation had been offered as to how this loss and breakage occurred. Therefor© the company could not complain if the Court inferred that such breakages and loss occurred owing to its negligence. The plai&tf.iff entrusted her goods to the defendant company, which undertook the trust, and it was a common carrier and not a mere forwarding agent. The provision in th© consignment note as to insurance against fire ad th© risks referred to a total loss and could not be construed to mean fixing tho limit of responsibility of the defendant company. In his opinion judgment should be recorded a'gainst tlie defendant company for £23 6s 6d. Judgment was entered accordingly with costs. At the hearing Mr C’. S. Thomas appeared for plaintiff and Air J. H. Ut£ham for the defendant company.