LUGGAGE ON THE PENGUIN

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 654, 3 November 1909, Page 5

LUGGAGE ON THE PENGUIN

UNION COMPANY NOT LIABLE. At tho Magistrate's Court jcslerdnj morninp, Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., gavo reserved judgment in the cases brought by Messrs. Perkins; Mllison, mid Green (Mr, Treadwoll) against the Union Stoam Ship Company (Mr.'Lovi) for tho recovery of £120 for luggage lost on the Penguin.

"The defence," said "rely on Section 293.0f the Shipping and Seamen : Act, .1908. Plaintiffs rely on Sections' 17,. 18,'. and 1!) of (ho Mercantile Law Act, 1008, which provide that icarriers. shall be -liable .'for. the ne-. gleet or default of themselves or their servants in tho carriage of good? notwithstanding notice to the contrary, but a carrier may make; such, conditions with respect to carrying as are ad-■ judged to be just and. reasonable by the Court before; which, any question; relating thereto is tried, and no special contract" niado between a' carrier and any other, party, respecting the carriage .' of ' goods shall be binding unless signed.by ; the party or the pcrßon delivering such goods for carriage. : The essential of the plaintiffs' case is the neglect or default of the carrier or servants, and thioy relied on the findings of the Nautical Court and the Supreino; Court in reference to the wreck of tho Penguin. These findings show that a servant of-.the defendant company was guilty of negli-' gence. Section 293 of the Shipping-and Seamen Act and Section.l7.of the Mercantile Law Act seem to be entirely inconsistent with each other.-, Itis'.clear that the former section was intended to exempt-from liability, for damage or loss resulting from-faults or errors of navigation or in the management of the ship. The, latter section appears, to refer to neglect or default in regard to the cargo itself, such as improper loading, _ bad '.stowage, etc. If > his Worship's distinction is v correct, the plaintiffs' oases must fail inasmuch as it has beon. admitted that the ship was seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and> supplied. "Counsel for plaintiffs contended that.-in the expression 'transporting merchandise or pro-, perty,' in Section 293, the. word . , comes under the class of 'ejusdem generis , terms.- ■ Surely, not. One might be; ! transferring household furniture irom;port to port, and.-such could not be called 'merchandise. . It is not the merchandise of the owner-, it i» the property of the owner. In the same way, a passenger's luggage is not his merchandise, it is his property." . . ~.■:. .;; '• Judgment was given- for the defendant company with costs J>7'ss.'■.'■. ' ' .- ;.,.,[ I