STOWAGE OF CARGO

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 298, 12 September 1919, Page 3

STOWAGE OF CARGO

SHIPOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

. Mr. W. G. Riddcll, S.M., delivered reserved judgment yesterday morning in respect: to a' claim for .£157 ■ Is. 'lOd., brought by R. G. M'Dougall. trading'as Aulsebrook and . Co., : Christchurch, against the Union. Steam Ship Co., Ltd., in respect to a shipment of biscuits and confectionery-alleged to have been damaged through faulty stowage on tho part of defendant' 3 servants. Tho bill of lading showed that the goods were received by defendant'subject to the conditions endorsed-' thereon, clause 1 of which "excepts perils of the sea." The vessel carrying the goods met with heavy weather and on • arrival at Wellington on May 3 tho' master rcixirtcd that tho vessel—the . Poherua—had met a fresh gale and had shipped considerable heavy spray on'.the voyage. At one period of the trip the vessel took 12 hours to go 50 mile.s, and he described tho naseage as exceptionally rough. Ho was not award that, there was any sheep dip on board. There was no special place for tho dip, which was therefore placed in the hold with other cargo." The chief officer said that' the cargo was well and carefully, stowed, and should have carried safely under ordinary circumstances. Apparently two of the drums had worked out from amongst the other cargo and the contents leaked on to th« floor and ran finder tho biscuit eases. The Magistrate held that the fact that the remaining drums of dip escaped injury and that no other part of the cargo was damaged raised the inference that there was something deficient in the stowage of the two' particular drums which resulted in.their being damaged and their contents escaping. His Worship cited several cases' bearing on the.point, and said that ifewas argued for tho 'defendant company that the-plaintiff's goods were damaged through "perils of tho sea," and as this cause was excepted bv the contract between the parties no liability could, attach to the defendant company unless it was proved that the damage •was due to faulty stowage. The cases cited for the defendant company could be, distinguished from tho present one, an<l His Worship said: "In the present case, it is doubtful if it could be eaid that defendant's servants did all that was. reasonably possible to ensure tho safety of plaintiff's goods. The act of stowing sheep dip in the same hold as plaintiff's goods was an. act attended with a certain amount.of risk of damage in the event of bad weather being met with." Judgment _ was accordingly given for the plaintiff, and the. amount of damage is to be arranged between the nartios as agreed during the hearing. Plaintiff was also allowed costs. . At the hearing, Sir John Findla-r. K.C,. appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. P. Levi for the Union Company.,