Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A PILLAGE CASE.

MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

RISK ON THE BUYER.

Judgment was delivered at Wellington last iveek by Mr E. Page, S.M., in the case of Bums, Philip and Co., Ltd., against T. E. Robinson, of Greymouth, hotel, proprietor. The claim was for £4O 7>s id for five cases of Hennessy’s XXX Star brandy, together with freight and duty delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on March last. Evidence showed that the traveller for the plaintiff company had taken an oral order for the cases, but no mention had been made as! ,to the price, as the brandy was a tariffed line, and no arrangement had been made as to the method of delivery. The order reached the plaintiff company on March 3, and was acknowledged by letter next day advising that the goods.would be despatched by first shipping opportunity. The brandy was sent per s.s. Regulus on March 9, and according to plaintiff a printed advice note, invoice, and bill of lading for the goods consigned to the defendants were despatched on the same day. The defendant denied having these documents. In May he complained to the plaintiff company that two of the cases had been pillaged, and refused to take delivery of such cases or to pay the price of the brandy unti 1 an allowance was made. Counsel for plaintiff urged that upon delivery by the plaintiff company to the shipper, the risk passed to the buyer, whose” 'remedy (if any) wds against the shipping company. Alternately, the property in the goods passed to the buyer when he received the bill of lading, and the evidence showed that he had received the bill and forgotten all about it. Counsel for defendant maintained that no arrangement was made as to delivery, and if the goods had to be delivered to the defendant then the property did not pass until, he had obtained thefts in good order and condition. The magistrate held that the contract was one f.o.b. Wellington, and the property passed to the buyer on shipment. Accordingly he gave judgment for the full ' amount claimed, with costs amounting to £ll Os 6d. Mr W. E. Leicester appeared for the plaintiff company and Mr Grogan for defendant.—N.Z. Times.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HPGAZ19251120.2.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4905, 20 November 1925, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
370

A PILLAGE CASE. Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4905, 20 November 1925, Page 1

A PILLAGE CASE. Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4905, 20 November 1925, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert