LOSS OF A CABIN TRUNK

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 272, 11 August 1921, Page 9

LOSS OF A CABIN TRUNK

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. The action brought by Mrs. A. S. Macfarlano against the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd. a claim for A5O (being the value of a cabin trunk and contents entrusted to tho defendants for carriage from Wellington to Westport, and which was not so delivered), was settled yesterday, when Mr. E. Page, S.M., delivered his ri)servc<s"jiidgmeiit. In April, 1920, the plaintiff took from the company a passenger contract ticket from Liverpool to Wellington, and on tho back of the ticket there wa> an undertaking to forward plaintiff and certain specified luggage from Wellington to Westport. During the latter part of the trip the cabin trunk disappeared. One of the conditions endorsed upon tho contract ticket provided that all questions arising should, be decided according to British law. It was contended on behalf of plaintiff that the contract entered into by the defendant must he divided into two parts — the first part covering the journey from Liverpool to Wellington, to be governed by the laws of England; and the second part, dealing with the journey from Wellington to Westport, according to the laws of New Zealand. There was a. provision in the contract ticket which provided that the defendant should not bo liable for loss of or injury to luggage beyond tho sum of dUO, unless value in excess of that sum be declared and freight paid. Counsel for plaintiff contender! that this was a special contract within the meaning of section 17 of the Mercantile Law Act, 1908, and as it was not signed by plaintiff was invalid. "I am unable to agree with this contention,” remarked Mr. Page. "Apart from tho specific provision that questions arising on the contract shall be decided according to British law, I think that as this contract was entered into in England tho law of that country governs the nature, the obligation, and tho interpretation of the contract.” It was admitted on behalf of plaintiff that according to the law of England a ticket in tho form of tho contract note was valid. In the opinion of Mr. Pago the contract ticket issued to plaintiff limiting defendant's liability to AlO unless the value in excess 'be declared and paid, was a valid one. Judgment was given for plaintiff for AlO, which had' been paid into court, and the defendant was allowed -C3 3s. costs. At the hearing Mr. C. IT. Taylor appeared for plaintiff and Mr. IT. E. Evans for defendant:;.