A CASE OF HATS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 266, 4 August 1921, Page 6

A CASE OF HATS

CLAIM FOR PILLAGE y LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS Mr. E. Page, S.M., delivered reserved judgment yesterday in the case of Butterworth Bros.. Ltd., of Dunedin, against the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd., a claim for <£2G os. 7d., beioi the value of twentyfive hats pillaged from a case consigned to the plaintiffs from Melbourne per ®- s - Paloona. The bill of lading was dated December 10. 1920, and it was admitted that tho case was received on board in apparent good order and condition. Tho vessel, arrived in Wellington on December 23. and discharged her cargo. In accordance with tho custom of the Union Steam Ship Company, tho cargo was, by arrangement with the Harbour Board, dumped on to the wharf, no tally or record being kept of individual packages or their condition. The documents relating to the case of hats were sent by plaintiffs to their clearing agents, Messrs.x Wilkinson, Orr and Co., Wellington, who on January 10, 1921, passed the Customs entries, obtained the Customs delivery order, and took the necessary steps to obtain' tho delivery order on the Harbour Board. When the carter was about to take delivery of tho case, he noticed that a batten was broken, and as there were other suspicious marks, he refused to take delivery. A subsequent examination revealed the fact that the contents of the case had been, pillaged. The Union Company urged two grounds of defence as follow:—(1) It .was contended that the company's liabilities as a common carrier only applied during the course of the voyage, and that as the goods were in the Harbour Board’s sheds from December 23, 1920, to January 11. 1921. the theft might have occurred during that period, and in such case the Union Company, in the absence of negligence, was not liable. (2) It was also contended that the notice of claim was late, as clause 6 of the bill of lading provided that the defendants’ would not bo liable under any circumstances unless the claim was made within seven days from the date that the goods were or should have been landed. With regard to the first ground, the Magistrate pointed out that it had been admitted that the case was received in apparent good order end condition. When tendered for delivery the case was in a damaged state, and it had been do cided by the Court of Appeal that the Harbour Board receiving goods from the shipowner under similar circumstances received them as agents for the shipowners. Mr. Page hold that the damage occurred while the goods were in tho hands of the defendants, and in his opinion tho onus was cast upon the Union Company to show that the damage Wils duo to some cause for which the company was not responsible. “In my opinion the defendants have failed to show that this case was landed on the wharf at Wellington in apparent good order and condition,” remarked tho Magistrate, “and I think, therefore, thev must be held liable for pillaging the case, unless they can escape liability under tho second ground eat up.” With regard to tho failure to give notice within seven days, Mr. Page pointed out that tho same question was raised under similar circumstances in the case of Orr v. Huddart. Parker, Ltd., which had been decided by him a few days ago. In that case it was held that the clause in question was-void, as being in breach of section 5 of tho Sea Carriage of Goods Act. 1901. Judgment was given for tho plaintiffs for tho amount claimed, with costs. At the hearing Mr. O. C. Mazongarb appeared for tlie plaintiffs, and Mr. P. Levi for the defendants.