A SHIPPING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1934, 16 November 1906, Page 3

A SHIPPING CASE.

IMPORTANT CASE HEARD IN WAIROA,

Among tho oases heard at tho sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in Wairoa this wetk, before Mr W. A. Barton, 8.M., was that of John Uyie v. Wairoa and Mohaka SaippiDg Syndicate (Captain Tonkin, mmaget), olairn £23. Mr E. J, Ohrisp, of Gisborne, appeared for cho plaintiff, and Mr Lusk, of Napier, for the defence,

Tne claim was for the loss of 36 paokuges by fire at Wairoa. Tho goods wero shippod in Napier direct to a place called Turiroa, four miles above Wairoa, oa the Wairoa river. They were shipped by the steamer Taogaroa. Tho bar not being workable, tho goods wero landed at Wairoa ia tho defendant’s shed, and whilst there were burns, the shed being destroyed by file. The point at issue was whether the oefondam’s liability ooded at Wairoa or whether they were compelled by tho bill of ladiog to oarry them on to Turirca, the oootract boiag from Nopier to Turiroa, Tho evidence showed that one of the packages was taken from Wairoa to Turiroa. Plaintiff a.-ked why tho rest had not coma to hand, and was sold th-a! they could not bo brought on because they were mixed up with other Wairoa cargo. Ho was given a promise that tho stuff would be brought up by the following Monday at iatejt it he would oooseni to tho delay. He consented to she delay on the distinct promise that the packages would be brought up by the Mouday. Shortly after the verbal arraagemsne the fire took plaoe and the goods wero aestfoyid. Taoro was a good deal of legal argument, and Hia Worship reserved hie decision,

OTHER WAIROA CASES.

Amalia Eiiz ibaSh McL;aa suid Peter Cram, claiming £B3 damages for breach of contract. Mr Foote appeared for plaintiff aud Mr Ohcisp for defendant. Tub plaintiff alleged there had boon a contract for the sale of leasehold promises together with aicck; she defendant bad paid a deposit of £1 and reoeived possession. The transfer of tho lease had also been signed by both transferror and transferee, but tho landlord’s consent not having been obtained, the question in dispute was as to wao should ootum that oonsen*.

After argumsnt His Worship held that tho oansent of the landlord should have been obtained by the plaintiff, und gave judgment for defendant, with costs £9 Bs. In the olairn Hodgo Bros. v. Mita H-mare, for £26 wages (Mr Ohrisp for plaintiff and Mr Foots for defendant), judgment was given for £lO, without OOSiS.