AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Hokitika Guardian, 21 April 1921, Page 3

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS. At the Magistrate’s Court to-day Air C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., gave his reserved judgment in the case of S. J. Preston (Mr Park) v. The Anchor S.S. Coy. (Air Wells), claim for £2O 11s lid for goods short delivered. His Worship’s judgment was as fol-

lows:— The law is very clear as to the liability of common carriers that apart from express contract, they are, with certain exceptions (the act of God and. the King’s enemies) absolutely responsible for the safety of the goods while they are in their hands as carriers. This responsibility is irrespective of contract and the defendant in this case would be liable to the plaintiff as on a. tort for breach of its duty in not delivering intact all the goods proved- to have been delivered to the defendant at Wellington. The owner of tile goods could claim against the defendant al- j though the consignee of the goods was j Jacobs, his carter. ! Before applying this law however, I j have to he satisfied that the goods I claimed for by the plaintiff were ac- j tually in the eases when delivered to I the defendant Company at Wellington, j and if so were not pilfered after leaving j the railway shed at Hokitika. It is not 1 suggested by the defendant, that tho goads 'were pilfered after leaving the railway shed at Hokitika and T dismiss j this possibility from my mind. Tho defendant however, does suggest that the missing goods either were never put in the cases at the warehouse in j Wellington or were pilfered in tho j warehouse or between the time they left there and were taken deliverv of hv

the ships. As regards the last- three items of the claim (amounting to £9 7s 3d) the plaintiff has entirely failed to prove the

delivery to the defendant of the case said to contain these. These items are contained in an invoice produced by plaintiff and dated 20th April. 1920, and the whole evidence of Watt, the packer, refers to quite another case—one comprising articles set out in an invoice produced in Wellington Court, dated 20th March. The plaintiff’s claim fails therefore in respect of these three items.

With regard to the other items, the evidence adduced at Wellington, and at Hokitika on behalf of the plaintiff is certainly not sufficient lo satisfy me that the pilfering could only have taken place between the ship’s side at Wellington and the time the case was delivered from the railway shed at Hokitika. It is admitted that the case was an old one that had been previously used and that it: was more difficult, to notice whether it had been tampered with than in the case of a new one. Moreover, it was a T and G case, and it- was so bound that one of the hoards was slid out without removing the iron hands and then replaced and renailed. It was also that the plaintiff’s carter, after examining the case at the railway, gave a receipt for it in good order and condition, and the plaintiff himself did not notice it had been tampered with until he had actually opened it up. Why then could it not have been tampered with before the carter at Wellington received it and lie not notice it? The packer of this case admitted that it may have been tampered with while lying in the consignor’s shed and renailed without having been noticed and that it may have been lying in the shed for a week.. The evidence does not convince me that the goods claimed for wore ever in the possession of the defendant Company and 1 nonsuit the plaintiff with costs £3 3s (including costs of evidence at Wellington—namely solicitors’ fees £1 Is and £2 2s.