PILLAGED CARGO

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 54, 27 November 1926, Page 10

PILLAGED CARGO

responsibility or shipping COMPANIES. Dominion Special. Dunedin, November 26. A now point regarding the responsi bilities of shipping companies in regard to pillaged cargo was raised in the Magistrate’s Court this morning in a case in which Bing Harris claimed <£s4 from Dalgety and Co. Ltd., the value of goods not delivered by the Tainui. Mr. Hanlon, tor the defendants, moved for a non-suit on the grounds that no claim had been made within three days in terms of the bill of lading and that there was no evidence that the goods in respect of which the claim was made were in the package received by the shipping company. Mr. Sinclair, for the plaintiffs, said that the shipping companies had traded on this notice clause very successfully. He claimed that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. 1921. absolutelv prohibited nnv such clause being included in the bill of lading inasmuch as it provided that no clause be inserted that would lessen the shipping companies responsibility for the safe carriage of goods. This notice clause had sa v ed the shinping companies enormous sums of money.

Mr. Hanlon replied that if the Taw was to be interpreted as Mr. Sinclair suggested it would lay the shinning companies open to the r'»k of all kinds of fraud for noonle would lie coming along months latni. Mr. Sinclair said that no limit was necessnrv in regard to the notice making claim < for goods that, might never have been carried on the shin. Tn the present ca=e this was unite nn imnpdnnt attempt to shoulder on to the shipping companv all the responsibility where the plaintiff'’ themselves did not pronerlv examine the ease. "The nuestion of notice raises n serious point that has not been determined before,” said iris M'ni-shiu. who intimated that’ he would take time to consider his derision.