GOODS SHORT DELIVERED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1883, 28 September 1918, Page 3

GOODS SHORT DELIVERED.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE'?

RAILWAY OR SHIPP INC COM-

PAN Y 1

A case of considerable importance to all who obi ain goods hy steamer from Wellington was heard at yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court. In .June last, Thomas Rimmer, storekeeper, ordered five eases of benzine from Wellington, and received a boat note that the goods bad been shipped by the Queen of the South. An order was received from Levin and Co., Ltd., agents and owners of the ship, instructing the Railway Department, into whose shed or trucks the goods are nut alter being discharged from the ship, to deliver the benzine to the consignee, Mr Rimmer, but, upon a conveyance being sent down for 'the goods if was found that there were three eases short. A claim was made on Ihe Railway Department and Levin and Co., Ltd., for the goods, but (he Department refused to admit any liability, stating that the receipt they had given to Levin and Co., Ltd., stated that there were three eases short. Levin and Co., Ltd., also refused to accept liability, as (bey claimed the full quantity had been delivered to the Department. At yesterday's sitting of Hie Court Thomas Rimmer brought an action against Levin and Co., Ltd., claiming £5 4s Od, the value of the benzine entrusted to the defendants on or about June 20th, 1918, to be safely carried for the plaintiff from the port of Wellington to the Foxton port, and there delivered in a reasonable time, and which was not delivered to the plaintiff. Mr (1. iI. Smith, manager for Thomas Rimmer, said they bad not yet received the benzine, a fad admitted by the Railway Department and Levin and Co., Lid. Mr A. J. Kellow, local manager for Levin and Co., Ltd., admitted that plaintiff bad not received the benzine, but slated that they had delivered (be full quantity to the Railway Department, and could not he held responsible for any shortage that might afterwards arise. The plaintiff called Joseph F. Irving, storeman for the New Zealand Railways, who stated that there was a shortage in (he shipment cn the date in question. He advised Air Kellow of the shortage the clay after Hie ship was discharged, and nine or ten days taler a receipt for the shipment, less the shortage, was forwarded to Levin and Co., Ltd. The cargo front the lore hold was (allied out of the ship, but the after batch, being general cargo, was ici cheeked as it was discharged, bid was chocked later in the slnal. He was satisfied there was a shortage, and had given, a receipt accordingly.

Albert •lam' Keilow said the benzine was (becked into the boat) at Wellington, and was talked out again at Foxti n, and he was satisfied the lull quantity had been delivered to the Railway Department. He produced Lie ship officer's tally cards showing [be method adopted in talJyiir; the cargo out. The Magistrate said it was for the plaintiff to satisfy him that the defendants had failed to deliver the proper quantity to the Railway Department, but from the evidence brought forward the plaintiff had failed to do this. It appeared to him that the Railway Department had no proper method of checking. Levin and Co. had produced documents showing I he method of checking. Plaintiff would be non-suited. His decision did not necessarily mean that the Railway Department was at fault, as they were not represented and may have an uns-wor to put forward. It might have been better had both, parties been joined in the action.