LIABILITY OF MERCHANT SHIPPING COMPANIES.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 10, Issue 618, 13 June 1866, Page 4

LIABILITY OF MERCHANT SHIPPING COMPANIES.

A few days ago there was raised-.in the Supreme Court here a question of some interest to all parties in fNew Zealand concerned in the transmission of goods and stock. This was the question of the liability of carrying companies to be sued by parties with whom contracts for conveyance of goods ox* live stock had been entered into, and broken by the companies or their servants. This question we had supposed to have been long ago decided. In tlie case of a ship we understand the universally admitted law to be that the master binds the owners to fulfil any contract into which he may enter ; aud this liability of owners for master’s contract is carried all over the world wherever the vessel may go. Personally, the captain is not held liable for any breach of contract, but only as the representative. He is merely the medium by which to get at the ship. Hence the practice, in actions for breach of contract or for damage through negligence, of suing the £ ‘ captain and owners” jointly. A change of masters, according to the generally received opinion of maritime authorities, and practice in maritime law, does not remove the liability of the owners, because every successive captain is bound to compete he contracts of his predecessor, so far as these may be unfulfilled at the time of the new captain’s accession to the command. This doctrine is so universally received and acted on that it was with something of astonishment that we found the principle involved in it made the subject of an elaborate discussion in the case of Strachan against Ponsonby, tried before a jury last Friday. _ Another point bearing on the same subject was started by one of the counsel in the trial wo have referred to. It was stated that the “ company could not be reached,” and hence the reason why, the quondam captain of a vessel had been sued instead of the owners ; although it was shown in the course of the trial that an error had been committed in suing the ex-captain, instead of tlie commander who was in charge of the vessel when the damage forming the ground of action was said to have resulted. We rather think that, as already said, wherever a vessel goes she carries with her her owner’s liability. His Honor Jlistice Johnston said, in a partly sarcastic and partly earnest manner, that “ people were found who sent out powers of attorney to sue in the colonies, but who neglected to send admissions of liability to be sued by others, and he supposed this was the case with the Panama Company.” Of course, it is the practice of most i people, and especially of large companies to follow the principle which was highly eulogised the other day by one of the members of the bar, who laid it down as one of his guiding and fundamental rules —-namely, to “ admit nothing,” and par consequence, we presume, to deny everything advanced on the other side. Large companies are peculiarly addicted to aleeeh-like adherence to this bar practice ; and, no doubt, wherever such companies can, theylwill ‘ 1 neglect to admit liability to be sued ,*” for corpora te consciences are of the most-airy and elastic texture.

But it happens that the law overcomes the will of companies and renders them amenable to justice ; and we do not suppose that, allowing for the natural selfishness of a large association, a company like the Panama would seek to evade an action by denying liablity, even if that would avail.— ‘ Nelson Colonist.’ '