DAMAGED CARGO

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17690, 30 July 1919, Page 9

DAMAGED CARGO

CLAIM AGAINST H/U I>D AST-PAEKER OOMPAKY. A cane of interest to Ltanedin merchants tad importers come before Mar H. Y. Widdowson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court y 03tarda.j, when Guthno, Bow con and 00. claimed from tho Lluddart-Pttrker Oa and in the alternative from the Krnpiie Carrying Company, the suin of £13 4s Yd, for damage to a shipment of 214 cases of glass, shipped from Melbourne in the Westralia, the contents of three cases having been destroyed with the exception of two squares. Mr Moore appeared for tho plaintiila, Mr Raimay for the shipping company, and Mr i". 13. Ad&nia for the Empire Carrying Company. Mr Moore mid that the Huddart-Parker Company had received the goods from Brooks, Roberta, Ltd., tho Australian agency for tho London firm from whom they had been bought—for shipment to Danedm in the Westralia. When the oases arrived at the plaintiff's warehouse, it was found that these three oases were so knocked about that it was oonsidoied that the gloss must be broken, and the firm accordingly refused to give a., receipt to the carter. Subsequently the oases were examined by tho Lmpire Carrying Company's manager, who found that all the glass was broken with tho exception of two panes. When the piaintitfs got the order tor delivery in exeniuge tor Uie bnl of lading, they handed it to Uie carrying company, wnieh took dolivery of the goods, and gave a receipt to the 14uddart-Parker Company us having received ttiern in' good order and condition. But evidence would show that the carriers handled the oases safely, and it seemed, therefore, that the damage must have been done while the goods were in the shipping company's hands, notwithstanding the receipt. Henry James Guthrie, a member of the plamtiil firm, said the coses were the usual sort used for the carriage of glass, and the ' goods were properly packed.—To Mr Ramsay 1 it was possible tor glass to be destroyed without external damage showing. The Huddart-Parker Company had marked 65 cases ae being insufficiently packed, but all the oases in the consignment had the same pocking. No written claim was made on the oompany until May 19, about six months alter the oases were landed. Mr Storey, the Uuddart-Parker representative, refused to take baok tho oases because the carriers had given a receipt for them. It was possible that the damage might have happened on the wharf. His firm did not allow for breakages.—To Mr Adams: The carrying company had no authority to make a examination for plaintiffs. The lorry waa properly loaded. —To Mr Moore: There bad been no change in oases used for packing glas3 during the war. ■ Norton Oram, manager for Smith and Smith, cross-examined by Mr Ramsay, said his fim> allowed 5 per cent, in costing for breakages. The timber used for tho cases before th» war might have been thicker than it was now. Douglas Davie, a partner in the Empire Carrying Company, said there was no chance of the cases having been damaged after he took them over. The floor of the lorry ■was level with the wharf. Witness noticed the damage when the cases got to the warehouse, where the light was better.—To Mr Ramsay: The damage might have 00-

ourred between the alings and the shed. — To Mr Adams-. It waa possible for glass to be in smithereens and yet no rattle be heard. Nothing happened during the loading of the lorry or on the journey to the warehouse which would account for tho damage.—To Mr Moore: Although witness knew that three more cases, which tho Huddart-Parker, Company paid for, were damaged, he had to aign a < clean receipt before he could remove them from the ■wharf. John Fox, carter, also said that ncthing occurred which would cause the damage. Mr Ramsay submitted that the plaintiff should be non-suited—firstly because notice of claim had not been given within the time prescribed by the bill of lading*; and secondly, because the contract had been made between the Huddart-Parker Company and Brooks, Roberts, Ltd., endorsed to Guthrie, Bowron, and Co. There ' was no evidence that the plaintiff was aa incorporated company Mr Moore said that as to the second

point he would ask the court to amend the information. Although notioe had not I been given In writing, it was unfair to take advantage of that, because the Hud-dart-Parker Company had been notified immediately of the damage. The receipt given by the Empire Carrying Company ■was the only reason the company had ever advanced for refusing to take back the cases. The Magistrate: It may or may not be •unfair, but is that any reason against the point raised? Mr Moore: That ia not for me to say. At any rate it will not be a very good advertisement for tTie company. Mr Ramsay: The company is prepared to take the risk of that. Mr Adams contended that, so far as his clients were concerned, the evidence showed that they had satisfactorily discharged the onus of proof,, which was thrown on them by their having given a receipt for the goods. The Magistrate raid he did not wish to Shut out any solicitor from looking into a point. He would reserve the question of costs, and adjourn the case, as affecting the three parties, till Tuesday.