CLAIM AGAINST A SHIPPING COMPANY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 293, 30 August 1918, Page 6

CLAIM AGAINST A SHIPPING COMPANY

RESPONSIBILITY FOE SHORT DELIVERY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchuroh, August 29. In the Magistrate's Court to-daji Quill, Morris and Co. proceeded against the New Zealand Shipping, Company for £47 175., the value of brandy not delivered. For the plaintiffs it was stated that a hogshead of brandy, forming part of a shipment, was delivered empty. Impressed on the bill oft lading covering the goods there appeared "Ship not responsible for quantity! of contents." The shipping company; claimed that they were covered by the impressed clause, but the plaintiffs held, that the defendants had given a receipt for 520 packages of merchandise, and the clause quoted merely meanfa fhat, although there might.be some quantity which was not apparent from outside observation', this clause did noti really affect the particular shipment, and was never intended to apply _to it. The words were meant to override or qualify Section 15 of the Mercantile Law Act, which made the signature os a master signing for the lading conclusive against him. The plaintiffs contended that the contents of the caslc were pilfered in the ship. Counsel for defendants pointed out that in the bill of lading it was specially stated that the goods were delivered "in apparent trood order- and condition." These, words had received a judicial interpretation, and there could lie. no controversy about them. He denied that the contents of. tho cask had been pilfered, and submitted that the cask had leaked, therefore the defendants were free from any responsibility in the matter. After hearing evidence the case was adjourned for legal argument.