DISTRICT COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 21 December 1901, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, GREYMOUTH.

Decesibeb 17th., 1901.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) AN IMPOBTANT DECISION. E. M'Murray appellant, and A, Hildebrand and Co respondents. Mr Hannan for appellant and Mr Guinness for respondents. This was an appeal from a decision of Mr Hawkins, S.M. at Greymouth, in a case in which respondents (plaintiffs in the Court below) sued the appellant (defendant in the Court below) for £23 16s 2d, the price of goods supplied to the s.s, “ Gertie," the respondents being a firm of butchers carrying on business in Greymouth and the appellant a registered part-owner of the s.s. “Gertie," residing at Wanganui. Upon the hearing in the lower Court it was proved that defendant was a registered part-owner at time of supply of goods, that plaintiffs’ firm had supplied ship for the last four or five years, taking their orders from the steward and charging accounts to s.s. “ Gertie "; that for the first few months of the ship’s trading to Greymouth the local agent paid accounts and thereafter the steward paid them up to the, period of the supply sued for; that during and for some time previous to the said period of supply, Chapman, the steward, was really providore of the ship under a contract with the owner at £47 a month, wnich was duly paid him, but that plaintiffs had no notice of his being a provi*. dore, and that defendant, and plaintiffs were totally unknown to one another; evidence was also given of a custom by the U.S.S. Co. and other steam ship owners to allow their stewards to act as agents in ordering provisions, the local agents paying accounts. The Magistrate having upon these facts given judgment for the plaintiffs,the defendant appealed on the grounds that Chapman, who ordered the goods, was a providore with no authority to pledge the owner’s credit, and that no accounts had been rendered by respondent’s firm to the ship-owner or his local agent. After hearing counsel, His Honour held that the owners were barred from denying the steward’s authority to bind them, having at first by payment of accounts recognised his authority to procure goods, and having neglected to give respondents notice of the providoring contract. The private contract between owners and Chapman could'hot relieve former from liability (Wright v. Glenn T.L.11. May Ist. p. 434) and the more fact of the steward saying ho would pay the accounts and then afterwards paying part of the accounts sued for, was not' notice to the creditors (the plaintiffs) of a providoring contract.

Appeal dismissed with costs, JEIO.