CLAIM FOR DAMAGED GOODS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 214, 29 May 1918, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGED GOODS

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Reserved judgment was delivered in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. W. G. 'Riddcll, S.M., in the case in which E. I. Proud proceeded against the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company. Ltd., and the Wellington Harbour Board .to vcovor .£O7 Is., tho value of a case nf goods shipped in London and consigned to plaintiff. The plaintiff claime'J that either the defendant shipping company was liablo for failure to safely carry tho goods or that tho defendant Harbour Board was liable, for failure to exercise proper caro of tho goods v/liila in its custody. According to th° bill of lading tho case was received by lee defendant company at London in 'ap;vr--nt good order and condition. Beyond this statement in tho bill of lading titer* was 110 evidence as to tho actual c-"'" ''-Hon of tho contents at the date <•■'' >h;nment. Tho caso was tallied out of IV- r.hip on December 10 and placed in 0:10 of the Harbour Board sheds, where it remained until it was examined five days later. Tho recoipt given by the ITarb-'-ur Board official was that the. caso.was is- apparent good order and condition. On December 15 plaintiff's <!gent found a n.n'k on the case, nnd in consequence it was opened. Outwardly tho case appeared in sood condition, but careful inspection showed a chisel mark on the centre board, and the iron band at the end of the caso had been broken and mended so care> fully that th® break could not be noticed. Tho zinc lining was torn for a distance of Bin. by sin., and on one sido were bloodstains. Tho plaintiff asserted that tho defendant company, haying received the caso in apparent good order and condition in London, and failed to deliver tho contents in I lie samo condition ir. Wellington, tho onus of explaining tho loss fell on the defendant company. Eor the defendant comiwny it was argued that plaintiff should be nonsuited on two grounds: (1) That as tho company received tho case for shipment in .'-.pparect good order and. condition, with weight, contents, quality, and valuo unknown, and discharged it at Wellington in the same apparent good order and condition, it had performed tho contract expressed in the'bill of lading; (2) that plaintiff could not recover as he had failed to give notice of his claim for loss to tho defendant company within seven days after tho dischargo of tho poods at Wellington as required by the bill of lading. For the defendant Harbour Board it was argued that plaintiff had not proved negligence in the storage ou the part of the board vhich resulted in the loss of the goods. With regard to tho Harbour Board, the Magistrate held that the evidence tendered by the board was sufficient. to show that the caso was not broken into yhilo in its custody, and held that tho plaintiff could not recover against tho Harbour Board. TIIO evidence tendered satisfied tho Magistrate that the contents of tho case were pillaged either before it was shipped in London or during the voyage. from London to New Zealand. Quoting authorities, tlic Magistrate held that tho defendant shipping company was liable for the nan-deiiver/ of plaintiff's goods unless tho latter was precluded from re- ■ covering by reason of his failure to make a claim for IOS 9 within seven days after the discharge of the goads as required by tho bill of lading. Such a condition' was -well known amongst merchants. There was no evidence that plaintiff's agent made any claim, verbal or written, on the defendant company within the time specified. Plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendant company had knowledge of plaintiff's loss shortly after December 15, and that followed by a formal claim on January 3 was a, sufficient compliance with the condition in tho bill of lading. It was doubtful if this argument was sufficient. "Ono must assumo that plaintiff wa.i awaro of tho condition with , regard lo claims for loss contained' in the bill of lading, and upon the facts presented I think defendant's contention must bo upheld."

Plaintiff vras nonsuited against the defendant shipping company, and judgment was given for the defendant Harbour Board, with solicitor's fees, .£,l Us., 111 each case. At the hearing Mr. T. Ncaye appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. T. Shailer Weston for tho Harbour Hoard, and Mr. M. Myers for tho Shaw, SaviH, nnd Albion Company, Ltd.