APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 11 April 1929, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

(Ry Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

Wellington. April n. The Appeal Court gave judgment to-day in the Rorstal Shipping Coy. versus Wanganui Herald Newspaper (.March ‘2lst) dismissing the appeal and upholding, the .judgment of Justice Smith in the Court below. Their Honours said: “'I here can be in our opinion no question that the real predominant and efficient cause of the loss was the useaworthiness of the vessel and not the entry of sea water. There was no doubt that water in the bottom of the vessel arose in the first instance front the fact that there was, wlmt has been described as a capillary opening in the, sement skill, but the whole sequence of events may with propriety fie comprehended in the term “natural causes,” and the lapse of time. We agree with Justice Smith that the unseaworthiness of the vessel was the real efficient cause, the proximate cause to which damage to the respondents goods must lie ascribed and therefore that the. 10-;s was ndt a loss by “dangers of the sea” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Sea Carriage and Goods Act.”

Questions submitted to the Court were then answered as follows:

(a) There being no modification of the exclusion of the common law warranty of seaworthiness in contract of carriage, there is implied in that coni raoiU absolute warranty of the seaworthiness of the ship. (b) Section 3 of the Sea Carriage and Goods Act does not in any way affect that warranty.

The loss or damage to respondents goods was caused by unseaworthinos.of the ship and not by “danger of the sea.”

Costs were allowed on middle scale to respondent.