DAMAGE TO CARGO

Hokitika Guardian, 15 April 1926, Page 3

DAMAGE TO CARGO

CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. WELLINGTON. April Id. The Court of Appeal was engaged this morning hearing an appeal from the judgment of Mr .Justice .MacGregor. Appellants are the master and owners of the s.s. Port Stephens, and the icspomlonts Ingli.s Bros and Co.. Ltd., of Wellington. Ihe ease came before- Ihe Supreme Court in the form of a special ease for argument on points of law. The facts as admitted are that in September. 192 A, Inglis Limited shipped from New York to Auckland on the Port iStepliens lour eases containing Clydesdale trades under hill of hiding, and while the appellants were landing cue case in October, Idl'd, Ihe ship’s tackle broke, with the result that the ease fell from mid-air on to the wharf and greatly damaged the truck, the value of which fell from £OSO Os IDil to £l5O. The particular portion of the -ship’s tackle which broke was the cargo hook supporting the sling, and from the report of an engineer it appeared that the steel of the cargo hook had become fry.stali.scd and was thus weakened. with the consequence that it fractured through the strain on the hook on account of unloading operations. Appellants admitted that the damage was caused by a detetive ebook, hut contended that they were liable only for portion, of the damage, as they were protected by a clause in the hill of lading limiting their liability. Tlte Judge held that underlying the whole contract of affreightment there was an implied common law warranty of seaworthiness, and lie was satisfied that the cause of damage was unseaworthincss of the vessel in respect of

the cargo hook. The only defence open to the appellants was Clause 4- ol the hill of lading, but this in his opinion did not exclude the'implied warranty. Accordingly judgment was given in favour of respondents for the whole amount of claim. The correctness of this decision js now being tested. Mr Blair appeared for appellants and Air O'Leary lor respondents. Decision was reserved.