Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1711, 12 August 1875, Page 2

A very important commercial question wa s raised in the case of John Keid v. 0. and G. Clarke, heard yesterday in the District Court, and the decision arrived at is calculated to cause considerable consternation among commercial men. The electric telegraph has now so largely suparceded postal correspondence that very important contracts, often involving thousands of pounds, are initiated by a brief message; bub if the ruling of the Court yesterday correctly defines the existing Btate of the law in relation to telegraphic orders, merchants will have to use extreme caution in acting upon instructions communicated by wire. The case for the plaintiff yesterday rested materially upon a telegram received by Mr Reid from Port Chalmers, and the Auckland manager of the telegraph department appeared in Court, and produced a certified copy of this message. But counsel for the defence contended, and the Court supported the objection, that the telegram was inadmissable as proof of contract unless the original copy were produced and the signature of the sender duly attested. To do this even in the case under notice, where the transaction has been between parties within the colony, the cost would have been considerably more'than the value of the debt, but in cases of telegraphic orders between New Zealand and Great Britain such a law would prove an almost insurmountable bar to recovery in the event of a dispute. Why this inconvenient and obstructive restriction should be placed on telegraphic communications any more than upon written or verbal orders, either of which may constitute a legal contract, does not seem very clear. It may be said that tolegrams are very open to forgery, but surely they are not more so than ordinary written communications, and

in cases where the question of authenticity is really &t issue, it would not be difficult for the assumed sender to prove on oath that he was not responsible for messages bearing his name. The necessities of trade now unquestionably demand that; a telegram certified by the local officer of the department, shall, prima facie, be accepted as a communication written by the person from whom it purports- to come, throwing upon him the onus at anyrafce of denying the authorship on oath. Assuming, as we must do, that the ruling which placed Mr Reid out of Court yesterday is unimpeachable, we maintain that no question affecting commercial interests has arisen of late, calling for more immediate legislative action than that under consideration. The subject is one which specially comes within the province of the Chamber of Commerce, and we think the committee should make inquiry at once in order to define clearly for the guidance of merchants the legal value of telegraphic communications, and, if deemed advisable, to secure amended legislation during the present session of Parliament.