SUPREME COURT
CLAIM FOR FREIGHT
JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
In tho Supremo. Court-yesterday afternoon His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout) delivered reserved judgment in the ease of Levin arid Co.; Ltd,, WclliiJßton, v. L.'-'S. Mnxwoll mid Co., .of; 21 Custom' 'Street '.East; Auckland, heard last week. : , ' ■ ■ . ■ ■
Levin-and Co., Ltd.j as of. tho ship Aryan, claimed from, the defendants,. i!164'25., freight on' 229 .'sacks of .kauri gum shipped, aboard the Ayran .for carriage: to Siiii Francisco' , from AVellington, tho freight being' payablo 'iit Auckland against bill of lading; ■ The .defendants had on board tho s.a. Monowai 550 sacks .'of kauri gilm, weighing 50 tons.,and this was to be shipped by the Aryan, but only',229'sacks', weighing 20 tons lOcvt.' lqr.,: -were! delivered! to aiid shipped by, the Aryan; The; defendants declined.to pay the freight on thw. The defence set up. was 'that 'though ■there-was an agreement made for.tho carriajte there w<is nothing .due. on, the ground that only a, part of tho-goods was tliipped, consequently. t!ie contract/being ono.:entire' contract,, had. riot been .performed. .. :. . •:■ - '.-.■■.
His Hoiiourf in the courso of: his jndg--.ment.-said; "Aβ I.read the.contract, it means that. -Maxwell nnd Co. agreed .to ; 6hip.by.the.Aryan 559 sacks Kauri gum, providing -delivery could be obtained from the Union , Company. /If they could iiot ' obtain delivery from the. Union Company I am of opinion' that. Levin and CoV-cp'tild - iiot'have sued for breach of contract for not delivering the-gum. ; They .were, however, ablo to .obtain delivery, from ■-the Union Company of. paTt of the stuff, raid there was nothing to lead- Levin ami ■Co. to believe that the Union; Company would riot deliver all the gum to , them. 1 am of opinion that Levin and, Go. were iiot-respbneible for the: non-delivery of the goods. 'The- gum"belonged- to-.Max-well arid Co:; :it was held by their agents the Union Company, in' pne-ofv.theii , ships,' and tho-Union Company,- instead ' of delivering the ffUrti to. Levin and ,Cp., took the gum-to Lytteltoniii the Moriojvai. To. enable the defendants to. eue.ceed I TOuld'have to Mdl'dnto thiscon- . tract ft provision , to thia'effect; -namely, 'that after, the''commencettejlt: of.;tne jinliygry.gf the. gain "arid" toff of-it'.being ' delivered, arid 'if the -Union Company refused- to .'deliver the full 550 Levin 1 , and Co. agreed'.at rtheir-own-: expense to unload j th' 6 Aryan; ■and'to take the , (roods'.that, they '■'had' put into-the hold of: tha Aryan , oflt;' arid leave them,-1 'presrime, on -the'.'jetty/.W-'ibe taken"back bv Maxell'antt v Cd;7:Jt'Vould-be''.on- ' reasoriable. and absurd to-suppose-that 6iich a provision'could be inferred:- 'The . (iontract, meana. {hat'.the 'phip'-imist tako the. Roods presented . frpta'-;the Union Company, and load all the goods if the Rpods.are, tendered .to them'.for such 'loading.!..;.lf they are.'hot tetidered there is no., pro'yision! in .the. 'contract that they-, have tofunlpad. the shipX; find- rer turn the ■Roods.". I '.- ".'•;..-.. V ~' ."•' ";.'-'-■ i ■■>.■' Hi* Honour, gaye; judgment for plain- : -tiff for the 'amount. claimed ji'Uh'-'fcosts • according to scale.'..:..'".;-'■'■.';- ,;, •; ; ; ! Vv 'i ■; At'the hearing.Mi , . IL, Jlyefe appeared ' for the T)kintiff..:and-Mr.-T, Young'; for • the defendant -,' '.'■ :;■'{:'/.,' .'..','. .'" ■';■ ;''■;;' His Honour the.Chief^Justice'.aiso delivered judgment >.in, respect to the distribution of the estate of the lato Pat-; tick .Bourie; of AVhenuakura, .-.farmer.' The parties... were Patrick • Alexander ' Bburke. of Whenualtura,.. near Patea, plaintiff, and 'James,. Thomas Bourke, .John William Borifke,' 'Andrew ,yjncent liourke.- JosopV Francis Bburke, ali.of. AATiennakutn,-and ; 'tlio .Trustee,; 'defendants. .■.■-.■■".■ .■•;-■■■ • .;.':• ':".•.. ;•-.,. ;• ' ; ■AccbrdinEt to the -facts, Patnct BoUtke, late of -TVliehuakura, .-farihet, -made hje. ■■ivill-on April 7, .1905, -;. and appointed ■ -James-.-Kennedy : and'-.Edmund.:•_Bourke trustees and executors : -in. conjunction iHch one-Thomas-Eogani/0f ..-Kakn-rameii. ; Patripk-Bourko.died.on July IT, 1907,; and 'jrqbatb; of' the;'wiliHvas ; f Rrapted-..t0/Hie ■pMtieV" named' ns -executors. liy. deed . 'of nssißriment; dated .'April 9,-.191 p, Jaiues Kennedy, the surviving- Dxecutor/.appointed the 'Public- Trustee solo triwtee.i-fJbe vi\i. The 'said Patrick Bourlce left him surviving five Sons, "arid by his will-speci-. ficoily devised the realty in his estate to' his'eona'iii iinequal.shafw, ■the.tesfcitor providinar that if. the; .lands;• devised to any particular: 'son;- were '&f gfe'fitef velae thu!! those doyis«d to anothi'r sou then tei! son-to'whbm the Mnd'pf greater ■ value, wiw devised wiis .Jd.pay to the eon to tv-hony the hinds ot iesser valuo were devised a'snm'.by way pfenuality of partition, the testntttf's 'intention bein? that each son should; receive-lm equal .benefit frr>m tj'besletij.-,:Upori. , he.younjjest'.son ■Mteinin's Vif.'the, properties deyieed Vere'.to'lM.yalued: 'and dividi'd "so- that the'•.bequests' rimlV.ba of equal value as far as pttSslbler'.The vduiispst -sin attained, his majfi'ity.' pii. jDecffilwr?') J9ts.';,.On.':Febfiia'i ! y'. (;;'I9IG, . the Ynluer-Generai' was .asked to make'a. vataatiori'of'the I<iiids.:llie'-vfliiQti6ria.to' b6 as on' Decembef i; 1915, rind the: viuuatibis so riiode were (a) iDi. CVriylo Survey iHsifict devised to Patriot-l.t-x-. ander' Uoilrke". (b) 201 acrwCnrIvle Survey District;' devised to James 'Thoums Boiiile, (o)-.100 nores,. Ha- ■ wera, devised'-to John ■;William Bourke. ,To?epli T'riiiicis TOti'vWi and Andrew Jince.it Bcnrke; MM.' Tlii§ valuaJion.was objected to by the majority wf the devisees,"'and,'.the Valuer-tieneral was; re-
cju'ested. to have a special valuation of tho inoiiortiea obt«ine<l 1 ns on Deomber i, lill.j, the_'yaluet-General Ijeiiij; infornud of liie piirposo of the valti-ition. On I'ctiiuar; , 25. 1917, tho Valuer-tioueral forward?! Valuations as follow:—In) i 13,843; (b> (c) j:lfl,Ufi. The Public- '.['rust Office accepted these viluations, and accounts were prepared flnd forvvnrdcd.to the beneficiaries for thoir Written appjovni!. On July 0, 1917, tho tlirte younger sons, through their.solicitors (Messrs. Chapman, Skerrett, Tripp, and Blair), wrote to tho Public Trustee protesting Hint the vnlimtions woru obsnrdly ' low, and adduciid. evidence in favour of -their contention, and claimed that Ihey would be [unfairly treated if the vrlfiition were n'dopled ng Hi" of distribution... It was then decided to o'btnin a fresh ..vnlinition by priv.ito valuers, llessrs. J. ]?, Corrigen and Oswnld Hawken. bf-Hnwera, were instniet,ed to make (be valuation, and.they submitted thefollo«:ing:-(a) X'21,722'-ln.; (b) (c) is. Total, .048,312 29. This valuation was accepted as the basis of distribution, and'the valuation of each son's 6hare in the realty, was treated as JJ9098 Bs. 5d., being one-fifth of the total value of J!48,311!; that Patrick Alexander Bourke pay .£12,059 lis. 7d., and James Thomas -'Uourke. £3101 Us. 7d. by way of. •ei]iialily of interest, and that out of the sum received by ..way of .equality _of 'interest thii three youngest sons receive cCso."fi -is. each.
In lii.f judgment, His Honour said that tho. niu'srion wns whether the Public Trustee made a valuation in nreordaneo ■with the. desire expressed in the will, (in Febnui'T 7, 191G, tho Ynlue'r-Gener.il wis asked, to make a valuation. This was doiiv.JjVit the Public Trustee did uot noeept this'\aluntioh. but did accept tho valuation.iriade by the Valuer-General on February .25, 1917". Later another valuntioii was. made by; private valuers and tho Public'' Trustee claimed that that was the valuation that must be accepted bv.thfe plaintiff, and the question was, cinikl the Trustee go oil making valuations at h'riy time, till the distribution pf. the property? "I ain of;.' opinion," His Honour said, "that 'the Public Trusleo, .-Inning uinde his valuation under tho wiii, has no power, to change hie tlernSjou.■■ • the- will declares that !-.the decision once, given shall be pna\ and. : conclusive'..upon all the sons.. That.de-' cisinu. • S'vas given.. The whole contest nri-scs .a.i .-to.the .valuation. If the .valuation is'correct,-then- the adjustment, is coraiit;,therefore the\a>le'-questipn that .'lias-..t0 "-be determined is whether .this vtjliiation .was made, and whether, toeing made,'-the'estate could be distributed.. In my opinion the valuation has been.mado alid.that,all' that hag..to be done. is.to ilistrilflit? the estate once the-ms'iaius whr;. have to pay Jnpney. on, accouat■• of IwV:Ji)J,'-e«t -more valiie'in land liinn' the others hiiye,iirronged to do so. In my opinion tho Public Trustee- must Iμ- order.vl, In.prccewl with tli'e distribmipn, in aoeordarico .ivithliis own account.
. .TW-j-(i(,meni moans-that the. -yil>in.lian iiiadfl c-n'/Ife'britarr 25. 1917, by :|(ip ■ Valnei-GenpT.il which the Public .Trustee acdptpit miisl hold. • ','
At' ths hearing, slr. T. Yohns, with Mm Mr. P.-Q'-Tlivi, of ■Hawera, appeared for thfi plaintiff, Mr. M.'M.ver?. with 'him' Sfr; O. n 'l l 'leining."for , Jnin^-Thomas ■Bouvk".::Mr: C; P. Skerrpft.,K.C.. with ■:!fim:- : Mr; Cfb'mble' and/Mr. for A. V. Bourke'. and •J-iViP Mfi 'G. Eose-for'the PilWis"'rriist'Office. ' • •"' ;'-" ;
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190626.2.84
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 233, 26 June 1919, Page 9
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,303SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 233, 26 June 1919, Page 9
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.