LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2394, 5 December 1881, Page 3

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

At the Lyttelton Resident Magistrate's Court on Thursday, before J. Beswiok, Esq., R.M., the case of Edward Eeeco v the Union Steamship Company was heard. Mr T. W. Maude for plaintiff, Mr H. N. Haider for defendants. This was a case in which plaintiff claimed £8 3s for damage alleged to be sustained to nineteen of sixty oases of castor oil shipped at Melbourne on a clean bill of lading in one of defendants* steamers. The damage claimed for was by leakage, loss of contents of oil caused by breakage of oases, alleged to have been caused by the carelessness of defendants in transhipping the goods. The bill of lading was put in as evidence, on which it was stated that the goods were* shipped in “ apparent good order and condition.” Mr Nalder called the pointed! attention of the first witness, W. Reece, to the word 1 * apparent ” being part of thu wording of the bill of lading. W. Reece, for the plaintiff, swore that upon examination o£ the packages when they reached Christchurch they wore found to be in very bad order, and. that there was every evidence that the breakage of the cases was recent. In previous shipments of oil, when the goods: had not been transhipped from one steamer to another, no such breakage and damages to the tins of oil had been found, and it was plaintiff’s belief that the goods were damaged in transhipment. The wholeof the nineteen oases were broken, and plaintiff thought, from their appearance, that the leakage had occurred within a week, before the goods reached their destination. The examination of the oil was made by plaintiff on the 16th instant. Mr Day, of Messrs Hey wood and 00., stated that the oil was landed on the Bth instant, and reached Christchurch on the 11th, a public holiday intervening. On the 14th the Union Company wore notified that the oil was in bad order, and on the 15th plaintiff received a reply from Mr Pufiett, the agent of the company, stating that the company were protected in the bill of lading against leakage, Mr Day testified to having the goods removed and repacked. The cases were in his opinion in unmerchantable order. The goods, were shipped on the 28th of October, and ha thought that as it was a clean bill of lading, that the damage was done in transit between the 28th ult. and theSth inst. James Shand, of Messrs Wood, Shand and 00., testified that he had seen the goods in question in company with Mr Day. The cases were much stained, and several were leaking. Some of the cases were broken, and the tins containing the oil were exposed. He thought the damage was recently inflicted, and he judged that they bad been subjected to very rough handling indeed. The oil was originally shipped at Melbourne by the Te Anau, and subsequently was transhipped to the Penguin at Dunedin. Both Mr Shand and Mr Day stated that the bad order of the oases was very conspicuous. W. J. Johnston,, tally clerk in the railway, Lyttelton, swore that he gave a receipt for the oil when it was landed from the Penguin, on which it was Btoted that there were several leaking, all stained with contents. The witness stated that a few of the lids might have been broken, but be saw nothing sufficient to require that he should state such breakage on the receipt he gave to the Union Company. Castor oil he always found leaky and had seen it running into theraiiway trucks until it was lying an inch deep. Mr Maude wished to call evidence to show that the Union Company were not relieved of liability until the goods reached Christchurch ; that so long as they were in the banda of the carrier, the carrier was responsiblefor their safe delivery. Mr Nalder pointed out that the suit was brought by plaintiff on. a bill of lading of the company’e, and that under that bill of lading the company’s liability ends when the goods leave the slings: on the steamer. The Bench decided to take the evidence and decide legal points subsequently. S. Panning, a tally clerk at Christchurch railway station, testified that some of the cases when they reached him were broken, in the lids. Mr Maude put in a list given by the Union Steamship Company to the Railway Department at Lyttelton of the vessel’s, cargo, with the particulars os to whom the goods were to be forwarded to. He held that that of itself ehowed that the company recognised a certain responsibility in forwarding the goods into the hands of the holders of their bills of lading in Christchurch. Mr Nalder contended that the company simply acted far the convenience of the consignees. He quoted decisions of the Privy Council in IS6S showing that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to show bad storage and negligence by the company to have a cause of action at all. He asked for a nonsuit on that ground alone. Mr R. Pufiett, the agent of the company, testified that their respomibility ended and the responsiblity of the railway began when the goods were put upon the railway trucks, and the railway’s receipts obtained by the company for them. The railway, however, are not supposed to deliver the goods to tho consignees at Chris' church until the freight is paid ; and goods which would be refused by consignees at Christchurch would be held by the Railway Department to the order of this company. The usual custom was to send the goods through to Christchurch, unless otherwise ordered, and the railway undertakes to take over tho company’s lien on them and collect the freight with their own railway charges. W. H. Griffin, in the Railway Department, testified to the general bad order of all castor oil packages. In the particular instance of this shipment of oil the goods were not sent to Christchurch on behalf of the Union Company by tho Railway Department. They were, however, in the list supplied totho Department by the company of goods to bo forwarded. This concluded the evidence, and Mr Nalder, quoting from tho conditions in the bill of lading, contended that tho defendants were entitled to a verdict on many points of exemption slated in the bill of lading. Bad stowage must be proved by tte plaintiff before he could recover. Moreover, the company, having landed the goods in Lyttelton, and received a receipt for them in. good order, except for leakage, were cleared, from all further liability. Mr Maude contended that sufficient affirmative evidence of negligence was produced by the plaintiff, inasmuch as a clean bill of lading was given in Melbourne when the goods were shipped, and a receipt was given by the railway on their arrival at Lyttelton which stated that the cases were leaky and stained by contents; that the goods were not delivered in like good order to the plaintiff to that stated in the bill of lading. Judgment wag reserved.