S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 104, 6 May 1903, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

Monday, 4th May.—Before Mr R. L. Stjn-' ford, S.M. INTERESTING SHIPPING OASE. Marcus J. Mcßeynolds v. the Northern S.S. Co., claim £44 2', the value of 80 bags bonf>dii9t, intrusted to the {defendant Company on *or about 28th November, 1902, to be s.fely Cirri-d for the plaintiff from Wanganui to Opunake, and there delivered in t. easonable tim°, and which bjga wer> no' di-livr-K-d to the pl.intiff. Mr Qilliam (Govett and Qulliam), app?ared for the plaintiff, and Mr G Grey (VVil on and Grey) for tha de Fendant Company. Me Qailliam, in opining the c\se, said that ths plain'iff relied on certiii* points, which wou'd be supp rted by evidence. The plni'it'ff had not beei informed that tha bonedust hid been sbpiped in the steamer, but when the steamer was wreckei on Bth January, 1903, there was a quan'ity of bon manure on board, which was dispos d of without the plain'iff being consulted as to its disposal. He called, Marcus J. a resident of Pungarehu, who, being sworn, said he had 03en a Jus'ice of the Peace for 12 years and bad been a storekeeper at Pungarehu for 20 yew, had recently sold out. Put in a receipt for 80 sacks of manure. It was s : gned by McArthur, the ma'e of the Gml.cb. Remember the Gairloch being wr-cb d on 6th January, Had reason to believe bonedust wasnotor.Gairloch. of the steamer at Opunake avid the goods had been landed at Onehunga to enable tha vessel to make another t'ip north. The steamer called at Opunake twice bitwesn the 28th November and 6:h January, the date of th 3 wreck. Bone manuie from Wanganui was on oua cf these occasions discharged at Opunake, a man named Jeffries wa3 the consignee. This caused ma to inquiries from the agents at Opunake, Wellington, Wanganai, an"! O iehun=-a. I telegraphed to the ag-nt at Opunake and go. a reply by telegram stating, " Bone dust not yet landed, expect it will be on Friday." Up to the 19' h of January did ro' know whit had become of the manure. Oq that date I made a formal claim on the Company. On the 3rd February the agent at Opumke wro'e: "Be your claim re manure, I have bren informed that your manure was on the Gairloch, and the Company do not acknowledge any liabi'i'y, but must refer you to your insurers." This was the fira 1 , 1 had haard of tha manure being on tin G'jirloch. I am well-known in Opunake and New Plymouth. Letters addressed "Mao., Punga'ehu" will find me. Pungarehu is 37 miles from New Plymouth and 13 from Opunake. Taere is a telephone bureau at Pungarehu, also at Oaonui. There is also a daily mail either from New Plymouth or Opunake. S»w the wreck of the G\irloch a little south of Oikura township, Th'era is a telsphone offica then?. Never had any intimation th it the cargo waa'to be sold. Was never consul ed about it. If I bad known my manure wis on board I could and would have saved it. Manure was saved from the wreck. 8 ilt water would not hurt it. I knew there were sashe3 and doors on tha Gairloch, and es I was building I was anxnus to attend the sale. I eaw no notice of the sale. My claim is for £44 2 J , the value of the manure on the steamer. I have mad* co claim for loss of trade,

To Mr Grey: The Gear Meat Company were the con-ignors; have the consignment note from Levin and Uo. Never received a shipping note from the Norihern Oompmy. Mr Newton King ordered the bonedu-t for me. Do not know Newton King sold the Lull.

Mr, Grey: And this manure. Mr Qailliimeaid he would tnketfcis as an admission that Mr Newton King sold the rmnure

Mr Grey said they admitted Mr King sold the eirgo. Witness, continuing, said he heard of the wreck on the 6ch, and on the 19th the Opunako agfn"! siid ha balieved it w s my bonedust that was on board'the Gairlooh. From the dat« of the wreck I got no intimation th if. the manure was on brnrd the Giirloch. Whtn I got the bill of landing I git a now from th? Guar Company in which I am described >is th • cmsignce. Stanley. Wakefield Shaw, beiag sworn, eaid I am a licensed auctioneer carrying on business for Mr Newton King. Remember the date of wrickof the Gair'.och on the 6th January. She was a general cargo boat trading between Wanganui, Opunafcp, and New Plymouth. The manure was tent to Wanganui bytheHuia and transhipped to tb« Gairlooh there. The v.lue was .£6 per ton. At Mr Reynolds' request made irquiries re the manura, stating we understood it hid bean overcarried. Got a r ; p!y to tlie effect that it wou'd be sent on. Sent Mr Reynolds a wire, "Northern Oompxny advise Gairlocb leaving for Opuuake to-morrow." Oa the 9th February so'.d the hull and cirg) ot the Giirloch, Went out a week before to see what she was like, so as to be able to answer inquiries. Looked down the hold. Knew bonedust was there. It was purclnsad aud saved by Mr H. Mills. It would not suffer any damage by salt water if the bags were intac 1 ;. After the wreck met Mr Webster, son of the local agent of the Oompatiy, and asked if he cou'd tall me if there was any bonedust i.i ths Gaiiloch for Mr Reynolds. He said tbey had no copy of h?r manifrst, but he believed eoms bonedust was on to ml consigned to Mr A. H. Mooiv, of Opunako. This was the case for tin plaintiff.

Mr Grey, for tha defence, stated that on two ooMt-i 'lis tha G liibch had c died but had baen unable to land goocis in spite of every effort to do so. He was prfcetding to refer to the Nor hi n i Company's consignment, note, wheii &1 QuiHi m obje«t<-d to any r loreuce to tlio .Northe;u Compmy's oi>n ; igumyni. note, ss the into bad not been sent to plaintiff. TheS.M. uph'ld tho objection. Mr Grey said ho would not press the matter, and c-tlled J.men Shaldrik, who said ho was agent lor tne JNortnorn ti.ti. Co. at Oiiehiuij;n. Opuwaka is an open io'.dsici.d. In is veiy usual f r i:«.ils to bo : carried past, Tho co.iditiuus v..?y uc [end tig to wea:her. Have ko\n cargo 10 he carriid biekw-irds mid forwards for threo month--, between INnvomber 28; h and Jauu ry 6th. Ktoiv, one occ son vrlvu tho G lirloch ca'loi she was unab'o to hind c r ; ;o. Ov..r camnsc ii quifc-3 si c iismon .■.".jiirct.ee a'-; 0;i laakc «. an;.oti fiiyif tho oiigir.a''| v.! .-i r ;.'i:i;i';i'. .I-;!-'.! a0p1'...-, t'.> iv.;r sre..m!.T| on i .•,boi ;^r/;;r.ri:i!i !.) l )«. 0.-, the G ■{■.■■

loch's last; trip to XJpunako sne hnded aoiuo ca-g'. Who landed tome ale. Consider'a p'ud'-nt paiton would land ir-.or and other pit unable urtic! »; fit-it. 1) clinod to ray if ho thcught bort?<lu 6 a p iishib!o aviicl>?, as Lo way not an cyporfc in bonsnu-j'i, Tho ale was io Iwgshe ids,

F. J. Takerbury, sworn, said he wis acttog as chief mate of the Gairloch on one occasion when they called at Opunake. Gould no 1 ; land a'l the cargo as it was late and looked dirty, and the-e was a heavy swell making. The larding is very unsafe at Opuoak". H .ve been on the Northern bofts for many years. It is more ueu \\ than ntherwis i o pass on than land cargo at Opunuke. Did nolj land any bon«dust for J; Series I it Opunake between the 28 h November and the 6lb January last. To Mr Qailliam: Cannot gay bow long the bonedust was lying on (he wharf at Onebunga. We had the bonedust on board on the occasion *hen the ale was landed, It was not m board on the second occasion whei ve passel, but we could noli go io, in my case.

''o Mr Gr y : We did not emmunia*o with Opuntke at all on the second .'cca&ioo as wa c:u'.d Lot go io.

Mr Grey said that was his case and proceeded to address the Court at considerable lerg b, contending that every reasonable effort had been made. He beld that the consignment note issued by L?vin and Co. held good io the os? of the Gairloch, and there had been no negligence. Regarding the wreck of the Gairloch that was provided for in the condition which protected the Company from an net of Go J, The 3.M. asked what was the verdict of the Court of Itquiry. Was the wreck due to negligence ? Mr Gray had not the finding of the Oour", but h:-ld that the ci-oii no stances ■jf the caso w. re tp cia', and it had been idnwnthat tiny, wer> jus*; those provide 1 for in the consignment note. As legards the silv-gt'of the cargo, he would to rccWi the mite on this point.

F, J. Taekerbury, recalled, said the bonedu9t was at the bot'o-n of the cargo. Went on board the Gairloch after she was wrecked. Thechmoes of salvage depended altogether en tho weatoer,. Thought tha ohances of salvage hop-loss, To Mr Qu'liam: Rem mbered the Harbour Board dredge going out to the v a el on the morning of the wreck. The Oompiny saved the ship's silver, but none of the cargo. Gould not say it the Court of Itq a>ry found the o»p----tain and officers guilty of but the captain had his 03rtificite suspended for aHm", and was oiderei to p iy the cost of the inquiry, Mr Grey objec.ed to this evidence. The S,M. thought it was admissible, Mr Grey asked that a note be taken of his objection to lbs eviJence regarding the decision of the Court of Irq liry, Mr Grey then oliimed that the company was entitled to hive the case disarmed, holding tkat the p'aiotiff had not succeeded io his allegation that the i Oompany could not con'rol the weather and quote! sevciul law cases in support of his contention. Mr Q lilliim said thit his client was entitle! to sucooed on thres gr.unds (I) neg'ijence oa the part of dffendant as shipowners; (2) liability of the Company as common, carrier?, and (3) f,r the conversion tf phintiff's goods without coneultiig him. He quoted law cases in eupport and pointed out that no bill cf lading was given, the only document being a receipt by the mite for the goods, so the Company e:uld • not c'aira exemption *from respond- ' bilhy under the bill cf lading condi- ' tiois. His friend hid chimed thit the i onus of proof of cegligeroi was en him, ■ but it was quite the other wiy and it was fJr him to shflw that there had been no negligence and tbis he had failed to do, He quoted oises in support of this. It had been shown also thit on one occasion the manure was not on bo,rd at all and this alone he contmded was fatal to the defence. Mr Q iillhm then wer>t on to show that as common carriers the company was liible and proceeded to quote cases in support, He then went on to deal wi'h the question of conversion and coctende 1 that no effort w s made to communicate with plaintiff and lint in tlii'case. tnH power of ta.li was exer-ci-ed wrongly. The S.'M, said he would judgment and give a wriitan decision on Friday. I