LAW AND POLICE.

Southland Times, Issue 620, 18 January 1867, Page 5

LAW AND POLICE.

A case of considerable importance to ship owners and merchants was heard on Monday at the Resident Magistrate's Court. Capt. Waugh, of the barque Royal Bride, from London, sued Messrs Morison, Law & Co., of this town, for the sum of £51, amount paid by him for the lighterage of certain goods consigned to defendants. Mr Harvey, who appeared for the plaintiff, in opening the caße, Baid it turned almost entirely on the question of the usage of the port — the defendants pleading that the goods were to be landed at the usual landing place. In the present case the tonnage of the vessel precluded unloading alongside the jetty, and the goods had to be lightered from the Lower and Upper Pool. The bills of lading specified that the goods were to be delivered at the port of Invercargill. Due notice had been given by plaintiff to defendants to undertake the lighterage, but they had refused. F; H. Moore, manager in Invercargill to the firm of Dalgety, Rattray & Co., agents for the vessel, stated the amount charged for lighterage was reasonable, but was not in a position to give evidence as to usage. D. Dunlop, shipping clerk to the same firm, stated he had four or five years' experience of the custom of the port. Shippers or consignees of goods by vessels of the size of the Royal Bride paid the lighterage of goods. About three or four years ago, owing to some dispute, bills of lading by vessels from Melbourne had inserted, a cliuse, " to be landed at the Invercargill wharf." London ships had not. He instanced the Witch of tie Tees in 1864, when the consignees (35 in number) paid lighterage. Jabez Hay, merchant, proved that in three instances of ships bringing loading from Britain the consignees had paid lighterage. In reply to defendant's counsel, (Mr Macdonald) witness stated there was one exception — a case in which the bill of lading specified "at the usual landing place."' . v 11 the others were deliverable at the Port of Invercargill. Presumably the ships would have landed the goods at the Jetty if they could have got alongside. Captain Burke proved that in his experience consignees paid the lighterage of goods from home, ships. When the Ella Gladstone brought a cargo from Melbourne it was paid by the ship. H. Law, orieof the defendants, stated ' the usual landing^ place was the. Jetty— the only legal landing plao»>; Many attempt! had been m«& ty e'Eptkins to fst eWf«#« tb jiriy

lighUrag*, but tKiiv' im&BL ibt%p iUte>«<l*di& making the ibip pay. < tu (ha tin* btfoti tht Court he might state that on excepfion*lljr tig& rate of freight, 60a to 80s per ton mi paid on the impression that the goods Would be landed by the ship. In his experience the ship had in* variably paid lighterage when she could not come alongside the Jetty. In cross-examination by Mr Harvey, witness admitted that the firm paid lighterage of some goods by the Witch of the Tees, and that he could not remember any particular case of a ship from Britain having paid. W. H, Oalder, merchant, stated that between 1857 an'! 1861 the usage was for the consignees to pay lighterage (bills of lading "deliverable at Port of Invercargill"), after, tlrat date the ships paid. These shipa did not come from Britain. Witness spoke . with special reference' ,,. to those from Melbourne or Adelaide, In crossexamination by Mr Harvey witness admitted having paid 1 lighterage on goods ex Witch of the" Tees, on account he', explained of a proviso stamped on the bills of: lading. iSontu of the ' Melbourne bills of lading specified' " to laid on the wharf," but not all. John Hare, merchant, gave similar evidence. Hia ; experience* in the Port, of -"ttiyWr-: cargill was of vessels in the intercolonial ' trade only. "J. M'Phersdh,- merchant , had during two' ;years experience of . t?ie port 'found the practice . to. be . for the Teasels to land goods at the jetty. This was :■■ in the intercolonial trade. Would consider the same rule applied. to vessels from Britain,, • 35. Cowpeiy merchant, gave similar evidence.. Thos. Brodrick, agent T?.1&.2j. and A.S.M. Co., stated in his ex--periehce the practice Was for the consignees to pay lighterage. Counsel on Votfc sides having addressed the Court, Mr M'Culloch . said hef would reserve his decision until the next day at 2 p.m. The decision of the Resident Magistrate's Court in the case of Waugh , (master of the Royal Bride) v- Morison, Law & Co., was given on Tuesday The action was lo recover an amount paid by. Captain Waugh for lighterage of . goods shipped on board his vessel at London for transport;— as per bills of lading— to the Port of Invercargill. The defendants through their council (Mr Macdonald) pleaded that the usage of the port required that, goods should be landed on the Jetty at ship's expense. It was proved in evidence that such was the custom with respect to the intercolonial trade. On the other hand, very clear evidence was led by Mr Harvey, for the plaintiff, to prove that consignees of goods by ships from Great Britain had been in the habit of paying lighterage. Judgment was given for plaintiff. A subsequent action, in which Messrs Morison, Law & Co. sought to recover lobs sustained on goods damaged by sea water on board the Boyal Bride, was decided in favor of the defendant. . . A sitting of the Supreme Court, His Honor Justice Chapman, presiding, was held yesterday in the Provincial Hall, Kelvin-street. IKb Honor in his charge to the Grand Jury congratulated them on the lightness of the calendar — there being only one criminal case, and that not of very serious nature for their consideration. This was a charge of stealing from the person, preferred by Thomas Fox against one John Simpson. [The particulars of this case as very recently given in our report of the hearing in the Resident Magistrate's Court will be remembered by our readers.] Mr Macdonald officiated as Crown prosecutor. The prisoner conducted his own defence with considerable shrewdness, and cross-examined the witnesses at great length. The iury returned a verdict of " not guilty."