S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIV, Issue 35, 11 February 1902, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

j/oKDAY, 10th February.—Bafora Mr : R. L. Siaofgrf, 3.M., JUDGMEKT FOE PLAIKTIFF. Wright and Hutches v. J. T. Johnson. The claim in this case had been paid, and judgment for 5s co>ts was igiveu on the application of Mr ijHqfcchen. Joseph Whi taker r John i I IcOook claim £23 9s 1 Id, and costs £1 Ills. Mr Hughes for plaintiff*. Sime • >, Joseph Rioketts, claim £1 4s Bd, and , i pgtS 58. j DEFENDED CASE LIABILITY OF CARRIERS. i Teed and Company v. Colonial Gar- , 'jpng Comptny. This was a claim for ' 'SB in respect of damage to a copying > bjath alleged to have been caused duri ing transit. Mr Richmond appeared ' for plaintiff, and Mr Hooker, the local agent for defendants, conducted their case personally, The defence raited was the usual one in these cues, viz., that plaintiff having given a receipt for [ the goods as having come to hand in ftgood condition, the def«ndants ware ■believed of liability. I It appeared that the bath in question ■was with two other pircels, one of ■which wfta a metal stand with feet, enVfclosed io a canvas cover by defendants, Ifrnd forwarded to New Plymouth. O.i L Arrival here the ag?nt, Mr Hooker,

----f, p aspatched the goods to the various f, ponsigneeg, all being apparently intact. The parcel in question was delivered at plaintiff's shop, and duly signed for, but half an hour afterwards Mr Teed sen., on taking off the paper ' wrapper, found two large dents in the llid of the bath, and immediately took steps to bring the damage to the notioe of the local agent, whoa he requested to inipeot the parcel, bat so notice being -tak«n of the matter, Ur Teed wrote to the defendants claiming 5s for the damage, and as they denied' liability, the matter was brought before the Court.

Afer evidence h*d been given on both sides, his Worship uid be had heard numerous cases of a similar nature, and the contention that the signing of a receipt for the goods relieved the c*rrrier from liability for damages that could only be seen when the goods were unpacked was altogether untenable. The cooi-ignee was not bound by-the receipt if on opening the goods within a reasonable time after delivery, and discovering they were damaged, he gave notio* to the carriers or their agent, as Mr Teed had done in the present case. Mr Hooker said that spsakin? from an of 25 years in dealing with goods received by rail and tt"i-

mer, he oou'd say that if only after tte lapse of five minutes after a receipt wat* {iven at the giod sheds, damage wis was found to hare occurred in transit, share was no redress. His Wershiy said that was altogether rrroDg. Due diligenc < must ba used in inpacking goods, bu". the law was clear is to going behind the r*c«ipt given for ;oods should damige have been caused n transit. He mus*', howerer, be latisfled that the consignor delivered she goods to the defendant in good coalition.

Mr I!idhmohcl~Bai<4~ in view of the* smallneos ef the amount involved, he had refraine 1 from the expense of taking tbe evidence of the consignor's manager at Wellington, but as his Worship required that evioVnoe, he would ask for an adjournment tj enable it to be taken. He thought, hawever, that if the adjournment were granted, possibly the defendants after learning his Worship's view of the owe would not contest the claim further. Adjournment gr nted by the Court for two weeks.