DAMAGED CARGO

Hokitika Guardian, 1 July 1926, Page 4

DAMAGED CARGO

i LIABILITY OF SHIPOAVXEHS. WKI.I.tNfiTOX. .June 20. | A reserved jutl"mpnt of importance lt> merchants regarding liability for I damaged cargo was delivered by Mr J'l. Page, in the Magistrate's Court today. 'I lie parties were Lacry, Bevor- ■ idge and C'o., plaintiffs, and the Cmnnininvcalth and Dominion ling, defendants.

j 'l’j.'e facts were tint on October M, | 1025, Arthur 801 l and Soils, Perth, j shipped on the Port .Bowen at Glasgow fourteen casks of whisky, seven quarters and seven octaves, to he tarried to Wellington. Upon arrival, one of the quarter risks was found empty. Examination revealed that the cask was in a damaged and leaking condition. Plaintiffs claimed to lecover from the defendants as agents for the ship the value of the missing whisky, amounting to £43 lbs sd. The Magistrate said that the liquor blight have all escaped through the leakage. The plaintiffs had contended that the leakage must have been caused by violence received while ,on or beiiig placed on the ship. The defendants said that the leakage was due to a defect in the disk, or to natural shrinkage in the timber.. He was unable to find affirmatively which tlieoly . was correct. Apart Ho til any provision that might he contained in tlie bill of lading, liability of a oominon eaiTier for loss of or damage to goods while being carried did not extend to loss or damage due to an inherent defect in the tiling carried. Evidence was given that the casks iii which whisky was

forwarded wore exceptionally strong and well made, and were never known to leak. Mr Page said lie did not think that the loss of the total contents of one cask could be said to come prima facie within the exception relating to inherent. defect, quality or vice in the goods. To obtain the benefit of the exemption, the ship-owners would have to show that, the loss fell, prima facie within the exemption. That they had faded to do. He gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the judgment plus the costs, £lO 10s.