WHO PAYS FOR LOOTED CARGO?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18014, 26 November 1926, Page 9

WHO PAYS FOR LOOTED CARGO?

IMPORTANT POINT NOW RAISED IN DUNEDIN. Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, November 26. A new point regarding the responsibility of shipping companies for pillaged cargo was raised in the Magistrate’s Court to-day in a case where Bing. Harris and Co. claimed £54 from Dalgety and Co., being the value of goods not delivered by the Tainui. Mr Hanlon, for defendants, moved for a non-suit on the grounds that no claim had been made within three days in terAis of the bill of lading and that there was no evidence that the goods were in the package received by the ship. Mr Sinclair, for plaintiff, contended that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1924 prohibited any such clause in the bill of lading, inasmuch as it provided that no clause should be inserted that would lessen shipping companies’ responsibilitjc This clause had saved the shipping companies enormous sums. Mr Hanlon replied that such an interpretation would la}- the companies open to all risks of fraud. Mr Bartholomew, S.M., reserved his decision, stating that this was a most serious point that had not been determined before.