Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 552, 17 February 1858, Page 4

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times. Sib, —I was defendant inacasehearda fewdays since at the Resident Magistrate's Court, the decision in which,if taken as aprecedent, will open the carryingl trade to the successful operation of gross frauds. As the public, particularly that part dependent on the boats for their supplies, may be affected by it, a statement of -the facts may not be wholly uninteresting to your readers. As the representative of a building committee I was summoned for £13 14s. for freight of timber from Lyttelton to Christchurch Quay; against which was put in a set-off to more than | that amount for timber not forth-coming. To prove this set-off a boat-note was produced, wherein was stated the number of pieces, their several sizes and their contents ; and this was signed in token of a receipt for such quantity by the master of the boat, the plaintiff in this case. This document acknowledges 425 pieces, containing 7133 feet. The receipt of the wharfinger at the Christchurch Quay was put in in evidence, and proved the landing of 366 pieces, containing 6472 feet, and on this quantity the plaintiff based his claim; the smaller taken from the greater amount will show the difference to be 1661 feet; for this deficiency the setoff was put in, leaving it to be decided by the Court whether the boat-note was or was not a real receipt. But mark the peculiarity of this decision! The boat-note was accepted in part, and in part disregarded. The plaintiff was to abide by his handwriting as to the number of pieces, but not as to their size (although fully set forth on the same paper), on the ground that a master of a vessel could not be expected to measure timber, although bound to count the number of pieces. So the plaintiff was charged for the 59 .pieces deficient, at an average of the whole, and triumphed in a viotory of £1 16s. 4d., out of which he had to pay half the costs.

We were told that the Court was one of " equity and good conscience," and therefore, it is to he presumed, not to be influenced by the stereotyped rules of law or business. It is much to be feared that this decision will incite some evil consciences to practice peculation in the hope of impunity. What is to prevent a boat's crew from doing what they please with any portion of the timber intrusted to them, and cutting the rest into two or more pieces to make up the original number ? This may be also taken to apply to the carrying of corn or other | merchandise, if delinquents are but careful not to be-very flagrant in their misdeeds. The number bags etc. delivered; the court in its " good conscience " must, if it follow out this decision, protect them even against their own handwriting. A common business way of treating such a transaction in any office of business and good conscience, would, I venture to say, be,—ls the boat-note a good document ? If so, the amount of difference proved should be allowed; if not, cast it aside as altogether worthless. And why should not something of the kind prevail in a Court of " equity and good conscience ? " It is but fair to the plaintiff to say, it is believed by all, from the authorship of the boatnote, that the precious document was a vile and a successful attempt to defraud the purchaser. The poor plaintiff was the victim: by his own act he fell into the trap laid for another. And through his neglect, to ascertain the real amount of timber taken on board his craft, he i caused my clients to pay for more then was received, and for this neglect on his part the freight was refused payment, and the set-off claimed. The uncertainty of the law has long been a household word. Will not eccentricity become also its characteristic here ? Your obedient servant, ISAAC LUCK. Christchurch, Feb. 13, 1858.