LIABILITY OF A SHIPOWNER

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 222, 13 June 1919, Page 5

LIABILITY OF A SHIPOWNER

■ CARRIAGE OF A POTATO-DIGGER. In the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards heard the case of Huddart, Parker, Ltd., appellant, and H. E. M'Gowan, respondent. Mr, A. W. Blair appeared for the appellant and Mr. H. E. Evans for the respondent. This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., who awarded M'Gowan £\% damages for the temporary dispossession of a package of machinery (a potato-digger) valued at .£35. Mr. Blair, in opening, said that what actually took place was that tho packagn was consigned to the Galton State Farm, Brisbane, and the original bill of lading was not sent forward, but .a. duplicate bill of lading was ultimately produced. The ordinary practice was lor- the ship to send tho second of three boat notes to the shipping office where the ship's, manifest was made up. This package was not entered on the .manifest, and that omission was the fault of the. shipowner. ' The package was'carried to Sydney, and nothing had been heard of 'it for eleven months. It was not the custom of shipowners to notify consignees of the arrival of goods. ' The shipowner often did not know to whoto the goods might be consigned. The consignee received the boat nolo or bill of lading, and made no inquiries for eleven months. As soon as inquiries were made the _ package was found in Sydney, where it had been treated as unclaimed goods, and was in fact sold as such. The sale, however, was immediately cancelled. The package ought to'have'been carried to Brisbane, but it was unshipped at Sydney, the onljr mark on the package being "H.E.M. Co.' The shipowner did. not know the consignee, and could not ha.vi: notified him. Mr. Blair contended that ir. mattered nothing to the consignee whether the package, remained at Sydney or..a.t.Brisbane. Had the package been entered on the lihip's manifest it would have been carried to Bisbane an'd unshipped there. It would have remained there as it did in Sydney, until the consignee called for it or made inquires. The respondent _ had suffered no damage. The potato-digger could be returned. . Mr. Evans said that the Magistrates judgment .cottld he sustained, on two points: (1) The breach of contract in the carriage of the package, and (2) tho conversion of the goods by the 6ale in Sydney. Tho offer to return the goods went only towards minimising the amount of the damages. It was the duty of the ship to'carry the package to : Brisbane, and there was no case in law requiring one of the contracting parties to help tho other in carrying out liis duties^ His Honour reserved his decision.