MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2377, 5 February 1915, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT DUTIES OP CARGO CARRIERS \ Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. V. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday concerning a civil dispute of considerable interest to nonsignors and consignees of cargoes. The plaintiffs in the case were E. T. Taylor and Co., Wellington, and the defendants the New Zealand and African Steamship Co., Ltd., and the claim one of £3 13s. 3d. Plaintiffs alleged that on September 25, 1914, defendants as « common carrier received at Sydney for shipment to them 5 quarter casks of brandy to be safely and securely carried to Wellington. The casks were shipped bj? the-s.s. Surrey, and on ar-

rival at Wellington, through the negligence of the defendants, one of the casks was found to be in a damaged condition, and empty. "The goods were shipped on an ordinary bill of lading," said the Magistrate ill his judgment, "which sots out that they were received 'apparently in good order and condition,' and contains an undertaking (subject to exception) to deliver them at Wellington in like condition. In the case J. Mason Struthers and Co., v. Shaw, Savill and Albion Co., it was held that a statement in a bill of lading that goods had been shipped in good order and condition threw upon the shipowner the onus of proving that any damage did not ensue while the goods were on board, or that it came within any exception in tho bill of lading. The exceptions in the bill of lading in this case are, inter alia, breakage or leakage and on that point Carver says; 'Ordinarily the burden of proving'that a loss which has occurred has been due to an accepted cause falls upon the shipowner who seeks to excuse himself. . . . If a loss apparently fo'ls within an exception the burden of showing that the shipowner is not entitled to tho benefit of the exception on the ground of negligenco is upon tho person so contending.' "Where an accident is such as in the urdinary course of things would not happen if proper care were exercised," continued Mr. Riddell, "the breakage itself, in the absence of explanation, affords reasonable evidence of negligence (Wilkius and Field Co., Ltd., v. N.Z. Shipping Co., Ltd.). The evidence beiii" that the goods were received in good order and condition, tho onus of proof that the brandy cask was properly stowed during the voyage is then cast upon defendant. To rebut the charge of negligence, Captain Atwood, tho Marine Surveyor, was called. H9 stated that ho surveyed the Surrey's cargo before it ivas discharged, and found this particu'ar cask in No. 3 'twceii decks, among, a bottom row of casks three tiers high. It was properly stowed, bung up, and bilge free of blocks in exactly the same way as the other casks which were delivered without damage. Defendants say that this is the usual method of stowing casks, and the dent in the damaged cask seems to be exactly where it lay on the blocks, it is. possible to assume that tho weight of the casks abovo caused the strain which resulted in the leakage. 1 think this evidence is sufficient to warrant tbe Court holding that the mere fact of the cask bomg damaged on the voyage docs not prove negligence on the part of. defendant's servants. Plaintiff's remaining evidence in proof of negligence consists of the evidence of a cask export, who says that tbe cask is a sound one, but_ had been damaged by pressure against some hard substance; that in ordinary circumstances <t sound cask of the same construction should have withstood the pressure of stowage. I do not think, however, that these statements outweigh the evidence of Captain Atwood, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to say that defendants can be held responsible for the damage claimed." Judgment was accordingly entered for defendants, with costs totalling £1 18s. Mr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. A. W. Blair for defendant.

DEFAULT DEBTORS' LIST. Judgment was givon for plaintiff by default in the following undefended civil cases by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. The Herman and AYcger Manufacturing and Contracting Co., Ltd., v. J. A. .Millar, £200, costs £2 195.; Wellington Plumbers' "Union v. George Fear ,£1 145., costs 55.; J. J. Niven and Co. v. Samuel Girdwood and Wallace Ross, £5 19s. 3d., costs £1 3s. 6d.; Commercial Agency v. C. Nissen, £14 Is. 3d., costs £1 os. 6d.; Abraham Levy v. Lieutenant P. Pira'ni, £2 19s. 6d., costs os.; same v. Quartermaster-Sergeant E. J. Butler, £6 10s.} costs Bs.; Wellington Publishing Co., Ltd., v. R. 0. Fullbrook, £1, costs os.; Forde and Co. v. Frank R. Challis, £1 155., costs 55.; E. I. Proud v Jas. M. Davidson, £2 Bs. 6d., costs 10s.; Jas. W. Clowes v. Harry M'Kenney, £7 12s. 6d., costs £1 os. Gd.; Albert Goodwill v. Arthur Read, £3 7s. ?d., costs os.; Wellington Cabinet Co., Ltd., v. David Whyte, £27 2s. 3d., costs £1 35.; S. S. Paterson and Son v. Henry Jas. Fra-sor, £3 lis. 1.1(1., costs 10s.; Mary Ann Wright v. Jas. E. Reid, £8 Sa. 2d., costs 235. 6(1,

Henry Matthew Stowell was ordered to pay Jesse Chittenden £11 12s. by February 18, in default ten days' imprisonment.

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. I In the case" A. E.- 'Dimock v. Win. Aubrey, a claim for possession and £3 9a. rent, judgment 1 was. entered for plaintiff with costs lis.. POLICE CASES. Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., dealt with the police business at the Magistrate's Court yesterday., A trooper named Angus Morrison appeared on remand charged with the theft of a bag and contents valued at £1 19s. 6d., the property of Roy Synnet. •ill". 0.0. Mazengarb appeared on his behalf, and pleaded for leniency so that accused, who was an old soldier, might not bo discharged from the force. A fine of£3, with witnesses' expenses, 45., in default seven days' gaol, was 'imposed, Albert Win. Hendy and Robert Meecham pleaded not - guilty to using threatening behaviour in Lambton Quay, while Richard Clifton, who was concerned in the same charge, pleaded guilty. Mr. H. F. O'Leary "appeared for Hendy and Meecham, and after hearing counsel's explanation- of the affair and the evidence the Magistrate immediately dismissed the information against them. Clifton, who caused the whole disturbance, was fined £1-, in default threo days' gaol. As he was being conveyed to the Police Station on a charge of committing a broach of the peace, Donald Gordon 'Rowlands turned and butted his arresting constable, Constable Whiteacre, on the stomach.' The constable was not quite knocked out and gave chase, and rearrested Rowlands, who behaved violently and attempted to bite and kick. Yesterday . Rowlands was fined £1, in default two .days, for using threatening behaviour, £2 or seven days for assaulting the constable, and £l or two days for resisting the police. Joseph Reginald Harding was convicted and discharged for drunkeonoss, fined £1, in default seven days, for resisting Constable Timmin, and £3 cr one month for using obscene language. Carl Erickson and Thomas . Clark, who engaged in a stand-up fight in Lambton Quay, wore each fined 10s., in default three days' gaol for causing a breach of the peace. Thomas M'Grath, charged with using obscene . language, was granted a remand until toKlay, so that he might secure a solicitor. Bail was fixed at £5. 0 A young ■ woman named May Wills was remanded "to February 10 on a chargo of stealing £25 in notes from the dwellinghouse of 'Charlie Yum, at Petone. Bail was allowed in ihe sum of £20. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appealed nn her behalf. May M'Manus was fined £3, in default one month's gaol, for drunkenness, and 10s. or three days for committing a breach of her prohibition order. Three first offenders were dealt with for drunkenness, one, an old man, whohad left the Ohiro Home the night previously, was ordered to be returned to that institution.

THE HUTT SLANDER CASE. The hearing of the alleged slander case in which Edith Osborne, housekeeper, proceeded against Nicholas Berg to recover £150 damages for alleged slander, and £7 for detention of personal belongings, which was' opened at the Lower Hutt Court on Wednesday, - was concluded before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., at the. Wellington Court yesterday afternoon. After hearing further evidence and legal argument :lie' Magistrate gave his decision. In respect to the first claim, judgment , was given for £5 with costs £3 65., and in regard to the claim for £7 for detention of goods, judgment was given for £5 with £1 12s. costs. Steamer passage money concerned in the caso was also ordered to he refunded. Costs of appeal were fixed at £10 10s., and the amount of judgment. Mr. W. j'erry appeared for plaintiff, and Mr, H. F. Ayson for defendant.