CIGARS GO ASTRAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1529, 27 August 1912, Page 7

CIGARS GO ASTRAY.

SHIPPING CASE. PRIMITIVE WAY OF " RECEIVING-' IN VOGUE AT AUCKLAND. (By Tolotraph.—Press Association.! Auckland, August 26. A point which very much concerns shipowners and shippers was ventilated at the- Supromo Court this morning before- his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert. Stout). Tho case was one in which Messrs. H: E. Partridge and Co. claimed JCI3O from A. H. Nathan, Ltd., ns agents tor the American and Australian .Steamship Line. Plaintiffs were consignees of ;i caso of Havanna cigars, shipped by one of tho steamers. of tho A. and A. Line. The caso was landed on the wharf at Auckland, placed in a wliarf shed, and, in some way, went astray. Mr. M'Gregor appeared lor plaintiffs, and Mr. Cotter, K.C., and Mr. Lndon for defendant. Tho facts were admitted, and counsel' argued as to' whether the ship was liable tor the vnluo of the goods. In answer to a question, his Honour was informed that the Harbour Board did not accopt any responsibility for goods lauded and placed in the sheds. They did'not take delivery of the goods. His Honour said that ho could not understand how the authorities of a port liko Auckland could .allow such a primitive custom to remain. Apparently the goods wore allowed to be dumped down on the wharf, and anyone could go and cart them away. If it.were proved that any things wore stolen under such a system it seemed to him that criminals ought almost to go free. It was inconceivable that such a method should prevail in on© of the leading ports of New Zealand. Mr. M'Gregor remarked that the Auckland Board would not relieve tho shipowner of responsibility. In Wellington the Harbour Board did accept responsibility. The only way in which the board could relieve tho shipping companies of responsibility was to accept delivery, but this they.refused to do. His Honour suggested that that being so, the' only , thing for merchants to do was do build 'sheds of their own somewhere near tho wharf, and store goods there. Mr. M'Gresor pointed out that such a scheme Would require the sanction of tho Marine Department. His Honour said that there should snreIv bo no difficulty in obtaining that if the Harbour Board would not take delivery of the goods. Mr. Cotter said tlyit he understood that the svstem (advocated by his Honour) of the Harbour Board taking delivery was followed in every other port in the Dominion. His Honour: I cannot understand why it is'not done in Auckland. It may be_ something in tho olimate—the soft climate. (Laughter.) ' Mr. M'Gregor argued that the consignees 'weTe not only entitled to delivery of their finds, but to proper delivery. His Honour: You say that they woreleft on tho wharf not in charge of anyone, and that any wayfarer might come ilrmg and pick them.up as unconsidered trifles. Mr. .M'Grejor: That is practically what ive contend. Mr. Cotter contended that a ship was Afferent from a land carrier, and responsibility ceased as far as the shipping conilanv was cnncornM when the roods Were anded at tho usual landing nlace of tho )ort. If there had been neglect, it was jn the part of the consignor in not inormin? the consignee that the ponds vere on the steamer. The fact of 'ho natter was that both Partridge and Co. md the agents of the steameT were quite nnocent in the matter. Both parties vHcved that the case was fraiidnlentlv aken from tho wharf, and tho question ras,: Who was uoim to bear the cost? Lewi argument in the matter was very engthy. and.' at the conclusion, his Hon-, ur said that ho would consider his decilon.