RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4489, 9 August 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, August 7. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) DAMAGE TO FREIGHT. The Resident Magistrate delivered the following judgment in the case of E. W. Mills v. J. H. Pyhe The test point in cases of damage on board ship is the state of the outer package, whether it shows ill-usage or not. If there are no marks of rough handling, then the difficulty of proving negligence is great. In the present case two main points are admitted—l. That the packing-cases showed no sign of damage ; and 2. That the contents of the two cases in dispute were almost entirely broken. It is also admitted that the packing of the cases was good. From the evidence it appears that the discharge of the cargo was carefully conducted, and that the cargo was properly stowed. Supposing this evidence to be correct, we must therefore conclude that the damage occurred in London, either by stowing cargo or previous to delivery. Considering that ships are stowed in London by professional stevedores accustomed to the business, it seems at least improbable that the damage was done in the stowage. Whether it was so or not, the evidence I consider is insufficient to weigh against the above-named test of an undamaged outer packing-case. It appears that on dis- . charging here the broken glass rattled in the cases. As applied to the loading, this might tell both ways. If the contents had been heard to rattle before shipment, of course the bills of lading would not have been signed. On the other hand, the cases may have been so carefully handled that they did not rattle in loading, as it appears that it was in consequence of an extra swing of the discharge-tackle that one case was heard here to do so. Upon the whole, I do not think the evidence of negligence sufficiently strong to make the ship liable. I lately gave judgment against a ship for damage done to a case of glass. The package was damaged in such a way as to show that it could not have been received in that state, thus showing evidence of negligence at some time in the discharging or loading. In the present case 1 shall enter a nonsuit, as it is possible that further evidence may be procurable at some other time. The plaintiff was therefore nonsuited, with costs. Mr. Allan gave notice of appeal The other civil cases were unimportant.