SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 209, 29 May 1920, Page 12

SUPREME COURT

SHIPOWNERS'LIABILITY DELIVERY OF GALVANISED PIPES ~ v y • In the Supremo Court yesterday, a claim - . for £452 Is. 9d. was made by Charles Lyons, of Chrlstchurcji, hardware mer- >. . chant, against tho United States and Australia Steamship Company. • . Mr. Justice Edwards was on tho bench. Mr 0. T. J. Alpors and Mr. 0. 8. Thoma& ((both of Ohrlstchurch) appeared for the plaintiff. Mr, A.- W. Blair represented the defendants. ! The -statement/ of claim alleged that u» • or about January 25, 1919, a New York company'"caused 142 bundles and 89 lcngths;of galvanised pipe, and 171 bundles and l7 v lengths of olack and galvanised pipe to- be shipped on board defendants' ship Westland for delivery to the plaintiff at, Wugington. Of those goods thefollowing were not carried to Wellington, and there delivered: 142 bundles of galvanised ( pipe, 12 lengths of . galvanised pipe, and. one bundle of black pipe. The plaintiff's claim was for the value of the pipeß that he said were, not delivered. Alternatively plaintiff claimed tho 'amount , - mentioned above as damages for' uegliI SC-:8. .. . . .... , . ,'. Mr. r Alpera said that the Weßtland'a lourgo comprised between 6COO and (600 , bundles of pipes, and about, ISCfI loose lengths of pipe bearing - divers:. marks, and destined for delivery to consignees in many parts of New Zealand.- The cargo had to be landed at Wellington, and in that port thero was some congestion and j't, «ome delay.; The ship' was in great haste to, depart, and instead ,of sorting, the bundles and landing tHem separated for the various .consignees, it dumped the's(X)o or 6000 bundles on the wharf more or less indiscriminately, and engaged the Harbour Board of Wellington to aort "them. . The board was given no specific : : instructions, about how to sort the bundles. Tho pipes of Wellington consignees were , sorted, into separate lots, roughly, for .each- consignee, but all pipes for Lyttelton were put into'.one heap, all for Dunedin into another heap, and all for. Auckland into-another !After "chasing, about • for months" the plaintiff stiff found ms consignment short delivered to the extent alleged-in the statement of claim. Mr., -Blair told - the 'Court that the ae- ! ■■■ fondants admitted a general shortage of 70 bundles of pipes, though they, could not say how many of those btiridlM rcro for delivery to the plaintiff.' It was con- ' delivery' under tho bill of • *2.°' n £ was complete upon delivery, to tho - ■ Wellington Harbour Board, and that upon the plaintiff lay the onus of provihg that , defendants did not deliver his piped' to the board. * ' . The Court, after hearing some evidenceand fairly lengthy addresses, reserved its . : decision.' \ •.

y HIRE*PDROHASE OF A MOTOR LORRY: ' / Before Mr. Justice Salmond. and a jury >.' $ tour, Thomas Edward Broughton, of Petone, .carrier, claimed 1 , from Neil Doneghue, :and Co., Ltd.,' of; Wellington, ' motor-body-builders, etc., £300' damages for alleged breach of .contract. : Defendants \ counter-claimed .possesion of a lorry, '£S0 , for damages, and £7 7s. 6d. for work done .by them..-•- ..■■ - i-n r ' ''i 9 - '-Peacock :the TplainS, :l , -'^ r . A. Fair the defendants. '• ' Plaintiff stated--that under the hire- ; purchase, aysten; ho entered into-an agree- . mentrtor -.the purchase of : a'lorry from •' defendants. ' The • lorry wa« ' delivered about l March, 1919, but proved unfitted for the; 'purposes., of pktiiitiil's business iiias-' . much; as' the 'engine, "was inadequate in . power, and worn out." Plaintiil-. allegea .that he ; had from. the defendants' an implied .warranty that, the lorry would, no the kind'of work he proposed to demand of it. In/.consequence of . the alleged breach of ■ that warranty he sought to rei cover £230 (being th 6 ±300 he claimed to . have.paid, defendants,: less his ; . v of; actual.. value of the lorry," £1C0); £Efl for money expended in trying 'to mane , the engine effective -and £50 for loss of ■: ■' time "owing to deficiencies in' the- lorry and engine." Doneghue and C 0.,. in their statement'or ./ defence, denied that the lorry and engine v;-ww.defective." They also-denied that : ..Plaintiff had:~ suffered '.damage by-reason '• t B " y t. I) . re!l(i h 'of contract on'their part.' • *u 'their 'counter-claim defendants ac- . .. cused.:the . plaintiff .of having in. thrte •pecified ways made default 'in the performance.. of,: the agreement. A They alleged thaton or about April 30, 1920, they terminated the hiring of the vehicle, and . demanded possession of it 'from, the - plaintiff,, who "wrongfully refused" to • deliver it to-them:-' They.claimed £7 7s. 6d'for ! certain , repair, work they had done' lo .the lorry.. .. . . . ... Plaintiff denied all the accusations made against ,hiin .m the counter-claim. With reference to- the- .£7 7s. 6d. Vclamcd for v 7W rk '''"Jie, 'he'- said it ivao! agreed that ujero should •'be no charge,' . . Lengthy:evidence was heard.. The:plaintiff. uiider- oroßs-examination, .stated-that . he had , expended £16 on repairs to the i various mechanics ]!, 0 W effected the repairs had all , the driver for the troubles. He ■. .. further eaid that for some little time'the lorry hand not been housed, ; but had stood : in. the open -air. • . . ■ At the conclusion of the evidence ten. . derei-in .supiioi-t of plaintiff's case,- Mr lair .-was..granted leave to move for a . nonsuit on the, following- grounds: That , no warranty of any kind was implied in a contract--for hire purchase ''where the buyer had had an opportunity, -of'lnspecting, the goods; and that the plaintiff . conducting- himself as to lead,dereridants to. 1 believe that he, waa /satisfled, had ceased to allege that the lorrv was unfitted for the purposes he wished *o put< it to* - . ' . Monday:® 86 ;; ViU ' be furtber ■ hcM[l t in