CARGO HANDLING.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16146, 26 February 1918, Page 4

CARGO HANDLING.

M Kit CHANTS v. T! AILWAY

A sr( CIiSSKn, ('LA!M

T. A. D. Bailey, S.M.. delirored reserved judgment yesterday in the civil case of l'"orbe.» iind Co.. (-^ r Wrights v. his .Majesty the Kins (itr Raymond, K.C.), and v. ihe HuddartParker Shipping Co., l-it«i. (Mr Harper). The actions "ere alternate to recover the sum ol £31 U'U an amount paid to the .Railway 3>epartI ment for the carriage of certain wire, landed at Lyttelton, from Lvttelton to Christchurch and back to Lyttelton, together with storage and other charges. It -was agreed that both cases should bo heard together. The money was paid under protest and on compulsion, to enable plaintiffs to obtain possession of their property. The plaintiffs alleged that the Railway Department had no right to make the charge, as the duty of the Department was to deliver the goods at the railway station in Lyttelton, and it the Department, for its owi; csnren'.ence. took the goods to Christchurch, it was bound to- bring them back to Lyttelton. As against the Huddart-Parker Company, the plaintiffs claimed that, as carriers of the goods, thoir duty was to deliver them to the plaintiffs at Lyttelton, and that, owing to their negligence in not sorting the goods they were not put in the Lyttelton truck, and were thus carried to Christchurch. His Worship in his judgment said: '.'Lyttelton is the port of the city of Christchurch, and, as quite 90 per cent, of the cargo landed at the port ia for Christchurch, to which place it has tci be carried by rail, the Railway Department has taken over the delivery of all goods landed by ocean-going boats and large steamers, and all cargo landed fronr> these boats is delivered into the railway trucks.on the wharf. There are not, as in the ports of Wellington and Auckland, sheds under the control of the Harbour Board, into -which the goods are placed, and delivery taken by the several consignees as suits them best. . . . The plan now in force is that when a boat comes in, the agent for the .ship sonds down to the Railway Department the usual boat-note. . . On the boat-note in question there were about 216 linos for Christchurch, 8 for Lyttelton, and two for "NVoolston . . The consignee's name and address in the manifest or boat-note, in respect of the goods in question, was 'Forbes, Ltd., Lyttelton.' " His Worship continued that the Railway Department also required, in respect of goods which were consigned to Lyttelton, that there should be a document called a detention, list, giving particulars in respect of the goods to be claimed at Lyttelton Among the articles enumerated in it in the present case were 1280 lots of wire for the plaintiffs. There were some trucks called "detention trucks,'' in which was placed the cargo for detention in Lyttelton. The practice was for the detention cargo to be sorted out in the holds or on the deck of the steamer and to be sent up separately, so that it might be placed in the "detention trucks." This was the arrangement which had existed for years between the Railway Department and tlie shipping companies, and from what ho could' gather, it had -worked very satisfactorily. It was, however, quite evident that mistakes would occur, and small lines of ."detention cargo" occasionally got into Christchurch trucks and were sent to Christchurch. If the lines were small, the Railway Department usually returned them, on request, free of charge. After touching on the evidence, his Worship said lie was satisfied that in 'this case a genuine effort was made to sort out the ''detention" wire. The shipping company's liability as between the company and the plaintiff censed when the goods left the ship's tackle, and the owner was expected to take delivery of the goods at the ]>ort. The goods should be unloaded according to the custom of the port, however. In the case of Lyttelton, when the goods were released from the ship's sling into the trucks provided for the purpose, tho liability of the shipping companyceased. The Railway Department had the duty cast \ipon it of delivering tho goods to the several consignees. The fact that the Dspartment had no sorting facilities in L.yttelton was no concern of the plaintiffs. If the Department found it necessary to carry the goods to Christchurch for the purpose of sorting, because there were no sorting sheds in Lyttelton, or for any other reason, the Department must bear the expense of so doing and returning them to Lyttelton. If in the present case the plaintiffs had been guilty of any negligence or omission in complying with the usual usages of the port, such as seuding~down the necessary notice of detention, the case would have been different, but, having complied with all these requirements, they should not now be charged with the cost for taking to Christchurch and back to Lyttelton the wire which should have been delivered: at Lyttelton. Judgment will be for plaintiffs in the action against the Crown, and for the defendant in tho action against the shipping company.

The groom who has been sent to hard labour lor practising as a doctor has, says an English paper, a prototype m literature. This was John Lunelle, a Scottish blacksmith and horse doctor, whom Scott afterwards discovered in business as a surgeon on the south side or the border. He confided to the novelist that ho employed but two remedies—"laudamv and ealamy." Scott gasped, ''Do you never kill anybody?" he asked. ''Whiles they die and whiles no; it's the will o' Providence,'. 5 ' was the answer. '"Onyhow, your honour, it wad be lang before it makes up for Flodden!" the black- „ smith added.