SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 284, 25 November 1908, Page 2

SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY.

AN INTERESTING POINT. By Telegraph.---Press Association. Dunedin, Last Night. A case of some interest to merchants and the shipping community was begua at the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr. Hutchison, S.M, The plaintiUs were Andrew Lees nnd llciry Brookes and Co., consignees' and consignors respectively of a shipment of glass that arrived by the Now Zealand Shipping t'o.'s llakaia, and defendant* were the New Zealand Shipping Co. The amount of claim was only JC4 10s 2d for damage done to glass in transit, but ths interests affected are considerable, a 4 the parties agreed to make it a test case. Mr. Barnard, who appeared for plaintiffs, said the case was to determine the liability of shipping companies for breakage of glass. A quantity of glass had .been shipped from Antwerp and transhipped at London into the company's vessel. It was shipped in good order, but when landed here some glass was damaged to the extent claimed. Th-j defendant company relied on certain stipulations in the bill of lading. The question was whether these conditions were just and reasonable and the extent to which these conditions could hold was determined by section 300 of the Shipping nnd Soamen Act of 10M of the New Zealand Consolidated Statutes. Presuming the New Zealand Act applied to this particular bill of lading, the facts were admitted. For the defence, Mr. Hosking, K.C., said the Shaw, Savill Co. was incorporated in London and its ships registered in England. The New Zealand Shipping Co, was incorporated in New Zealand and its ships registered in England. On this depended whether the bill of lading was to be construed according to the New Zealand law or the English law. 1 The point was, did the section in the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen Mi, 1003, apply? The section stated tint any clause in the bill of lading "providing shipowners or agents, etc.," should be relieved from liability from damage arising from improper condition of the ship's hold, negligence, fault or failure m proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery of merchandise committed to their charge shall b« null and void unless the Court holds it to be just and reasonable. The question was whether the parties had not by their contract submitted to have the clause in the bill of lading interpreted according to the law in England. Decision was reserved.