Claim Against Railways For Pillaged Goods

Chronicle (Levin), 5 February 1948, Page 7

Claim Against Railways For Pillaged Goods

INVERCARGILL, Feb. 4. A decision of importance to importers of goods who may have. claims against the Railways Department for damages arising out of loss or pillage oi goods while they are iu the custodv oi ihe department, was given in a reserved judgment clelivered by Air. Abernelhv, B.aL, todav. The case was one in which M Henderson, Ltd., claimed £10 19s damages from the Crovvn for goods lost, stolen or pillaged while in transit by rail from Bluff to Invercargill or while in the car of the department at Invercargill. The Magistrate non-suited suppliant 011 the ground of insufficient evidence. The goods weie landed from the Waitaki at Bluff iu October, 194(j, and in support of the claim ancl to prove the goods were in the case from which it was alleged they were missing, suppliant produeed a clean invoice and bill of ladinn.

The Magistrate hcld that a clear invoice was not sufficient to prove the goods were in the case ancl that tlie. bill of lading could not be used in support of a claim against the department but only against a shipping company. "To succeed in a- claim of this sort the suppliant has . to show that the goods were in tlie case when it was landed from tlie ship and that pillage took place while the goods were in the custory of the department," the Magistrate added. "As a clean invoiqe cannot be aceepted as evidence that the goods were in the case when it was I •landed froni the ship, this might appear .1 to place an almost insuperable burden j of proof 011 suppliant. Unfortunately it does but there it is. There is no evi- I dence that the missing goods were in j the case when it was landed because j the evidence of the itivoice cannot be. | aceepted. T aiii unable. to find tliat the evidence nieets the situation. The inAmice is not prima facie evidence that the goods wero in the case and the bili of lading is nor admissable as evidence.