SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 51, 29 July 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

’ SITTINGS AT NISI PRIGS. Tuesday, July 28. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson and a Special Jury.] The Nisi Prius sittings were continued at 11 a.m. BUCKBIDGE V. THE NEW ZEALAND STEAM , , , SHIPPING COMPANY. The hearing of this case was resumed. Mr Garrick addressed the jury for the defendant, and then proceeded to call evidence in support of the defendants’ case. J. Clephare Paton, accountant to the defendants, deposed to having a recollection of seeing the plaintiff in November last, respecting the shipment of a horse to Wellington, but that he entered into no contract, signed nothing at all. He told plaintiff to apply at the Lyttelton office for a shipping order, and pay freight. On cross-examination by Mr Joynt, the witness stated that he never issued a shipping order without freight being paid first. Daniel Robert Cooper, deposed to having been'first mate of the Taranaki, in November last. He then gave evidence as to the plaintiff bringing ahorse for shipment in November last. For some half hour they tried to get the horse across the stage, but it refused to go. Mr Buckridge then desired the horse to be slung, which wAs done. The second officer was sent to the winch, and when all was ready, the word was given to hoist. When lifted from the wharf the horse began to kick and plunge furiously. When raised high, enough to lower him on deck, the witness observed blood coming from the nostrils of the horse, which had also plunged off all his head gear. He was immediately lowered down to the wharf, and when there he threw himself partly between the wharf and the ship but not so as to hurt himself, the ship being perfectly still. He was hoisted up on to the wharf, but he was quite dead. The witness then proceeded to give evidence as to the width of the stage over which they wanted the horse to go, and also stated that that there was no deficiency of* steam at the "winch. , _ Robert Watt, second officer of the laranaki, deposed to the attempted shipping of the plaintiff’s horse on the day mentioned in the declaration, a 1

James Butters, chief engineer of the Taranaki, gave evidence of a similar nature. The amount of steam at the winch when witness was raising the horse was 301 b, quite sufficient for one of his weight.

The plaintiff was examined for the defence, but the evidence was not material. Mr Garrick then addressed the jury for the defendants, contending that the plaintiff not haviu? given notice of the value of the horse to the defendants was not entitled to recover more than £SO. The Carriers’ Act, 18G6, enacted that only £SO should be recoverable unless the plaintiff declared the value to be greater, and paid an increased rate for risk of carriage. [Syrams v Chap lie, 5 A. and E. | Mr Joynt contended that the Carriers’ Act could not be pleaded as not being in the declaration ; secondly, that there was no evidence that the New Zealand Steam Shipping Company were common carriers. Mr Garrick then quoted the case Syrams v Chaplin. The decision in this case showed that it was a condition precedent for the plaintiff to give notice of value. Further than this, he contended that the chief officer was not a competent authority to take delivery of the horse before a contract had been entered into by the freight being paid and shipping note granted. Mr Joynt contended that to entitle the defendants to claim the provisions of the Carriers’ Act of 1866, they must have averred themselves as common carriers in their pleas. [Hart v Baxendale ; Baxendale v Hart.] The learned counsel cited a number of cases at very great length to prove the position he had taken up. His Honor said that as the argument on the legal point of the question had taken so long the Court would adjourn till 11 a.m. next day. The Court adjourned at 6 p.ra. till 11 a.m. this day, when Mr Joynt will proceed to comment on the evidence. This Day. The hearing of this case was resumed at 11 a.m. Mr Joynt having addressed the jury for the plaintiff, His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short retirement, brought in a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £256.