PILLAGED GOODS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 266, 4 August 1920, Page 7

PILLAGED GOODS

THE LIABILITY FOR LOSS.

By Ttlairaph—Pren Asnociation."' Auckland, August 3. Judgment was given by Mr. Cutten,. S.M., to-day in the case of G. P. Coles ■ and Co., Ltd., v. W.'Cook and Son, a: claim-for goods which) plaintiffs stated, were delivered to defendants, but defer.-; dants claimed that the cases in which; the goods were shipped had been pillaged.' with the result that they did not reoeivo| the N goods. Tho facts were that boots ordered by the defendants, merchants in ! Blenheim, were shipped by .plaintiffs,, but were-stolen en route from pillaged cases, and defendants declined ■to nay; for boots of tho consignment that tlioy: did not receive. His Worship said de-. fendants maintained' that tho delivery, of goods to a carrier in Auckland was; not delivery to them. The agreement; >by plaintiffs to pay freight to Blenheim: was a usual bade concession, and wasj overborne by tho fact that defendants'had: requested plaintiffs to insure the goods; en route for them. They contended- that, insurance meant insurance- against, pil-' lage as well as their riskr but tho contract was for insurance against "ordin-j ary insurance," and that could not bo< held to include insurance against pillage! Ho held that plaintiffs had promt dc-1 livery, and gave judgment for plaintiffs I for tho amount claimed, .£35 6s. 6d., and! ,£4 18s. (id. costs.