MERCER

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 317, 9 October 1917, Page 1

MERCER

A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION SHIPPING COMPANY THE DEFENDANTS The claim of Messrs A. W. Webb, of Mercer, and J. Hughes, of Hamilton, of £f>o against the Waikato Shipping Company, Ltd., in respect of the value of 44 cords of firewood which had been loaded on a barge belonging to the Coy, the barge having sunk in the river before departing for its destination, was further heard at the Mercer Magistrate's Court on Wednesday last by Mr E. Rawson S.M. There was a counter-claim by the Company for £3 15s for freightage of ten c rds of firewood landed at Hamilton and for £lO for the hire or detention of the barge for five weeks. The facts, it will be remembered, were that the barge was hired by the plaintiffs for the transit by water of firewood from Mr Webb's farm at Mercer to Hamilton and after having been loaded with 14 cords of wood it sank. A prrtion of the wood had, however, been recovered. The defence was that the barge had been imperfectly loaded and further that there was no contract for the firewood to be delivered at Hamilton in any specified time. It was stated at the previous Court that the Company were only too anxious to assist settlers to develop trade on the river but that they could not admit liability for a mishap in which they were not concerned. Evidence for the defence was continued on Wednesday.

0. H. Norris, wharf foreman for the Shipping Coy, deposed that the barge was suitable for the purpose intended. After the barge had sunk he asked the plaintiff, Webb, why if the barge leaked he did not use the pump, but Webb said it was not his business but the Company's to do it.

W. H. Oliver, boat builder, of Mercer, gave it as his opinion thai the barge was sound. He added that he had assisted in recovering the wood subsequent to the barge sinking and he estimated that they had recovered 17 cords. He thought the balance would be secured when the river fell to normal.

A. L Stevenson, manager of the Shipping Coy, gave evidence as to the plaintiff Webb coming to his office at Mercer and asking him to arrange for the carriage of firewood to Hamilton, a series of trips beiDg suggested. He agreed to make a trial trip, but there was a distinct understanding with Mr Webb that that the load should be taken when opportunity offered, viz, at the Company's convenience, and also that the plaintiffs were to carry out t! eloading. TbeC>mpar>y further did not undertake any care of the barge while it was being loaded. Just after the barge was sent up to be loaded the river fell to an abnormal extent and several of the Company's boats, including the launch that was to have taken the barge to Hamilton, remained grounded in the river. The Magistrate reserved judgment, but intimated that he would probably i ule that plaintiffs had not established their case as the Coy apparently Bgreed to carry the wood at their (the Company's) own convenience and had not accopted delivery of it. With re.-pect to the counter-claim Mr A. E Skelton thereupon announced that if judgment was given in their favour they, under the circumstances, would not enforce it.