LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1617, 7 December 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

9 SUPREME COURT. (Before his Honour Sir Robert Stout, C.J.) ISLAND CARGO PER MAITAI. LEFT BEHIND. TRADER AND U.S.S. COMPANY. Shipping owners and shippers of perishable produce will' no doubt be interested in an action, which commenced, in the Supreme Court yesterday before ■ the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a common jury of twelve. I'he litigation arose on account of the fact that a. quantity of fruit had not been loaded at Barotonga on a certain voyage of the Maitai from San Francisco to Wellington. The plaintiffs in the action are' Carl Kohn, trader, of Rarotsonga, and a number of New Zealand produce merchants, for whom Kohn ships fruit. The defendants are the Union Steamship Co., Ltd., owners of the Maitai. . Mr. C. B. Morison, K.C., with him Mr.' A. Fair, appeared for Kiohn and the other plaintiffs; Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. P. Levi, appeared for the Union Steamship Company. • According to the statement of claim it appeared that Kohn trades in fruit and other produce and . exports fruit from R-arotonga to vnrious merchants in New Zealand. On February 21, 1912, Kohn (it was alleged) delivered to the Union Steamship Company fruit for conveyance from Rarotonga to ports in New Zealand. This delivery was made within reasonable time before the time fixed for the commencement of the voyage, viz., February 22, 1912. The Union Steamship Co. (it was alleged) failed to load certain of the fruit and failed to effect delivery within a reasonable time after February 22. By reason of this failure, Kohn and the other plaintiffs had suffered damage amounting to 95., and they now sued to recover this amount. As an alternative cause of action, Kohn ?T U ■ c.j° , plaintiffs alleged that the Union Co. had contracted to carry the fruit by the Maitai, and had issued shipping notes in respect of this contract. The steamer, because of her unseaworthiness (it was alleged) failed to keep her time-table and was unable to fulfil the terms of the contract. Defendants generally denied liability and maintained that the loading of the fruit depended on their being able to keep the terms of the mail contract. .They also maintained that they had made ailreasonable efforts to load the fruit in face of adverse weather. It was agreed that the only question to be submitted to -the jury should be that oi the amount of damage suffered il 1 after evidence for the plaintiffs had been called addresses were delivered on this point. in , the jury, stated that the only matter for them to consider was what was a fair allowance for the damaged fruit. As to whether or not the Union Company was liable' would be dealt with afterwards, and would not be affected by the verdict. The jury, after a retirement of half an hour, found that the allowance in respect of the damaged fruit should be 4s. Gd. per case, or a total of .£836 lis. Evidence was then called on the other questions involved in the action, and concluded before 5 p.m.. Legal argument was then ,adjourned until a day to be fixed. ..