DAMAGED CARGO

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 391, 27 June 1928, Page 15

DAMAGED CARGO

WIRE CORRODED CLAIM AGAINST SHIPPING COMPANY Contending that a big shipment of galvanised wire had been damaged in the hold of the Canadian Government steamer Canadian Explorer, John Burns and Co., Ltd. brought a claim for £350 in the Supreme Court this morning, before Mr. Justice MacGregor, against the owners of the vessel. The claimant company stated through Mr. IT. P. Richmond that 40 per cent. ; of 2,340 coils of wire had been damaged by sea water. The total value j of the consignment was £S7o 10s. The j wire was found definitely damaged, j showing marked patches of corrosion, i As a result of the damage the con- j signees first refused to take delivery, but ultimately received them subject to allowance for the damage. Counsel said that the common de- i fence in such cases was that before i being shipped the goods were not apparently in good order and condition. It was, however, in this case fortunate that the factory, warehouse, and shipping point at Sydney, Nova Scotia, were all within a mile of one another, and the facilities for handling were such that damage before shipping was out of the question. The wire was stowed very near the bottom of the ship’s holds. In the same shipment there was a further lot 1 of wire stored in higher portions of , the ship. This consignment arrived ; in perfect condition. Counsel informed the court that a large amount of evidence had been taken on commission in Sydney. He felt he was not physically capable, owing to a cold, to read the depositions. There were 80 pages of close typescript for the plaintiffs, and 120 for the defendants. Tlis Honour: On paper, then, the defendants ought to succeed. Mr. Richmond asked whether his Honour had read the evidence. His Honour: My mind is quite virgin soil on the subject. I think it is the usual thing for the registrar to read such evidence. Perhaps he has a cold also. NOT A TEST CASE Mr. Richmond said the action was not a test case, and was not so much a question of law as of fact. Mr. Rogerson contended the action was certainly a test case. He argued that there had been no negligence on the part of the shippers, but the corrosion had resulted from circumstances quite beyond the control of the defendants. His Honour suggested that the facts be thoroughly argued, and the case then go to the Appeal Court as a test case. The evidence on commission was not read. SIGNS OF CORROSION Mr. C. E. Tudehope, attached to the shipping and customs department of the plaintiff company, said that he examined the wire on its arrival in Auckland in February, 1927. Many coils were badly corroded in patches, and showed signs of rust. To Mr. Rogerson, for the defendants, witness said that the captain of the vessel told him that he had informed Lloyd’s surveyor that he could not account for the damage. Witness did not inspect the ship’s hold, because it had never been his experience to be invited to do so by the surveyor. He denied that the wire might have come in contact with the weather through a faulty roof where the coils were at present in store. W. S. Good, yard manager fo.r the plaintiffs, corroborated evidence of corrosion. Mr. Richmond then put in evidence on commission for the plaintiffs. This was read by the deputyregistrar. Its burden was that wire had been manufactured with due care and was a fair sample of plain export wire. The coils were stowed aboard the vessel to the satisfaction of employees of the manufacturing company. Recalled by Mr. Richmond witness, Tudehope, said that a previous shipment from the same manufacturers had arrived in December, 1925, in perfect condition. A shipment subsequent to that found damaged was also in sound order. Mr. Rogerson said that the defence would be that the corrosion was due to atmospheric conditions obtaining in the whole of the ship during the voyage. It was caused by the sweating of the goods then' being carried. That explanation was supported by officers of the ship who examined the cargo on arrival in Auckland. Counsel said he wished to make it clear that the action was in every sense a test case. He contended that shipping companies in general were greatly troubled by the problem of sweating and condensation in the carriage of certain classes of goods. (Proceeding.)