Untitled

Grey River Argus, Volume V, Issue 315, 21 January 1868, Page 2

The p.s. Bruce arrive^ in the river, bound for Westport a,nd" Fox's, on' Saturday afternoon, and left again the same eyening. The p.s. Persevere, laden with cargo from Hokitika, entered the river early on Sunday ttiorning The as. Nelson arrived off the bar early yesterday morning, but, o.wing to the heavy fresh, could not enter, aud sjie. proceeded on to t.he Buller. }t \s expected that she would meet the Kennedy a.t Westport, and transfer her passengers and cargo, to that steamer. ' T^ea.B. Lord Ashley, from Sydney, arrived at Hokitika on Sunday morning ; and the e.s. Albatnbra, from, the East Coast ports and Nelsor^ reached the same roadstead in the evening. Both steamers are expected to arrive, off the G^rey tb^s morning, and will receive immediate dispatch. The" AJhainbra takes over. 300Q ounces of gold from this port for Melbourne. On Saturday afternoon the cutter F,-iora Ma.cdonalil, bottniA for Pakihi, was towed out gve? the bar tiy. wlialebqat, there being iiardly the slightest bit of break cv. She crossed easily, aud soon got under sail. The ketch Anne sailed out on Friday n.tght, with a good breeze and calm sea. " We take, from the "'West Coast Times the following report of th.c appeal case Gird wood y. Hehir and another heard befor Mr Justice Richmond at the Supreme Court, Hokitika, pn Friday last :'— Girdwood, appellant, Hehir and another respondents. — -Mr Harvey for appellant ; Mr Button {or respondent, This was. a, special case, on appeal from decision of William Horton Reyell, Esq., resident magistrate at Greymoutb, on August 29, 1887. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, Patrick Hehir and another, qgaiust the defendant, David Girdwood, to recover the su 1 m of L6l 6a, the yalue of a case of drapery goods, alleped by the plaintiffs to have bte-i shipped on V, 3ar 4 * Q $ ketch, Jsabella, 'a,t Greymouth, and, not delivered;. On the hearing <,f the case it was proved that the defendant had chartered the vessel Isabella, with the exception of" the poop aud cabin's, which were to remain for the use and benefit of the captain or owners, as appears by the charterparty ; that no, bill of lading was signed for the goods in question, but a mate's receipt pnly was given ; that the goods in question were not entered on the freight-litt ; that no goods appear on the freight list unless there ja a bill-of-lading ; that the goods were put into the hold, which was a portion of the ship phartered by the defendant, and not into the part of the shjp reserved for the benefit of the master or owners, and that the mate gave a receipt for their delivery. It was contended pa the p; rt of the plaintiffs, that the mate, yrao receives cai gn o i board and gives receipts for the delivery, is the agent of the defendant, the charterer, to bind him to safely de'iver the g p.'s at the place of destination, a? the goods were put into defendant's portion of the ship. It was contended on the pther side, that the charterer, not hiving chartered the entire vessel, was not entitled I to the control of the vessel, and therefore the mate was the agent of the owners, and not of the charterer, and, could not bind him. The question, therefore, for the Court to decide was whether the mate was the agent of the charter or the owners ? Mr Button stated that he was instructe.l to. take three preliminary objections. The first was that four days' notice of appeal ought to have been given ; the second was that the appell; n; had iiot proved he had given security as nun tioned in the Act ; anil the third was that the- appellant had not used due diligence i.i prosecuting the appeal. His Hjonor overruled the first objection, without calling on AJr Harvey tp reply, and after bearing the arguments of counsel, stated that he considered th,e othei objections had been waived by hoth parties signing the special case. Mr Harvey stated appellant's case, aud cited Savilje V. Campion, 2 B and A, 503, to show that under charter party such as mentioned in this case there was no demise of the whole ship, and consequently the charterers had no lien, f-qr freight, which was the foundation of tho responsibility for goods. The learned counsel also quoted Hiitton y. Blagp, 7 Taunton, to support the same view. Mr Button said that he agreed that there was no demise of the whole ship, but the respondent's case did not depend on that. Between the owners and charterers it might be a material question ■whether or not possession was parted with. Whether charter party amounted to demise of ship or not, it certainly was a contract for the use of the' carrying part of, the ship, togtther with the services of the master and crew; It was a part of the services of the master, stipulated for, th;.l} he should sign bills of lading, and part of the stipulated service of the mate that he should give mate's receipts. The captain signs bills of ladinjj whether thy contract be that of affreightinen

or by charter party. The captain and crew were the agents of the pharterers to receive the cargq, as well its being the agents of the sl) : powner, and the shipper hacj a right r look to pith er of the principals. Craven v. Ryder, 6 Taunton, 433, W"S a strqng authority to shqw that a nmte's receipt was f r many purposes, as in this cage, a bill of la<?; in^. His Honor, in gning judgment, said that the case had been argued for tjie appellant on the ground that there had baen no actual demise of tl.e ship to the charterers. 'J hsre was nq doubt that in a tase of actual demise the captain and crew became the servants of th/ 3 charterers, ajid th° question really was—whether tho mate was 'not the a^ent of the charterer under the contract. He (his Honor) thought that he was, and the appeal must tb,er.pfqr.e be dismissed, with costs.