SUIT FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 274, 15 August 1919, Page 9

SUIT FOR DAMAGES

BISCUITS SPOILT BY SHEEP DIP LIABILITY OF SHIPPING COMPANY DEBATED ■ Mr. W. G. Riddoll, S.M., yesterday heard, legal argument upon a suit for damages brought by Messrs. Aulsobrook and Co., .biscuit manufacturers, against tho Union Steam Ship Company. Tho plaintiff company sought to recover tho value of a consignment of biscuits that was shipped in May by tho Poherim, and was damaged, in transit, by sheep dip. The point at issuo between the parlies was not the amount of damages payable, but tho liability of the defendants to pay any damages at all. Sir John Findlay, K.C., appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. P. Lovi for tho Union Steam Ship Company. Sir John Findlay said that tho only question the Bench was called on lo decido was whether the defendants were legally liable for certain damages to (he plaintiffs' goods. If His Worship found in favour of the plaintiffs the amount of the damages to bo paid could be arrived at without further trouble. There was n good deal of common ground in the proceedings, and ihe case could bo narrowed down to a few plain facts. The plaintiffs shipped at Lyttelton in good order aud condition 34 packages of biscuits and confectionery for shipment to Wellington, on May 1, 1019, by tho Union Sloum Shi)) Company's Poherwa. The value of the goods was .£l5O odd. When (hey arrived at Wellington it was found that tho wholo consignment'was damaged by sheep dip, and tho plaintiffs thereupon put in a claim. Plaintiffs contended that tho damage was dono by faulty stowage. Tho stowage of tho lins containing sheep dip was so faulty that in a somewhat rough sea tho tins broke loose, became damaged, and allowed their contents to escape, damaging the goods of the plaintiff. There was a second allegation, viz., that after tho sheep dip got into tho bottom of the hold, the servants of tho defendant unloaded the biscuits into tho liquid, vind so damaged them. On either contention, it was 'submitted, the plaintiffs were, entitled to succeed. The damage.occurred aboard the ship, and on that admitted fact counsel submitted that it was for the defendant company to show how it occurred, and that Ihe cause was (a) within one or other of the exceptions of the bill of lading, or (b) was not due to the neglect of the defendant company. If tho containers of tho sheep dip had' been. properly stowed, wherever they were put, they, could not have broken, loose and dono the damage-they did. It was further submitted that in any oaso Iho stowage of sheep dip in tho same hold as foodstuffs was not proper,'. Apart from any other considerations there wno an implied warranty in the bill of lading on the .part of tho ship owner to' carry such goods ns sheep dip in a place .where-(hero could be no possibility of damage to such goods as biscuits and similar goods carried.by the ship. Mr. Levi said the defence was that the damage was caused by "perils of the sea", within . (he meaning of. that expression as. interpreted by well-known cases. The defendant company relied upon Ihe exception (in the bill' of lading relating to "perils of the sea." . Mr. Levi called witnesses who eave evidence concerning the stowage of tho sheep dip. Tlin Magistrate reserved his decision.