PRICE V. N.Z. EXPRESS CO.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 123, 2 September 1910, Page 5

PRICE V. N.Z. EXPRESS CO.

IMPORTANT MAGISTERIAL JUDGMENT. By Telegraph. —Press Association. Wellington, Last Night,

An important judgment was delivered by Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., in tfaq Magistrate's Court this afternoon in 'if civil action brought by H. Price and Co., Ltd., merchants, of Wellington, against the N.Z. Express Co., Ltd., to recover £37 18s 9d, the value of traveller's sam« pies entrusted to the defendants as cajr« riers on July 25 last, for removal from the railway station to the premises of West and Sons, at New Plymouth, and) which were destroyed by fire whilst in,' defendants' charge. The goods were sample pictures of a cheap kind and sample wall papers, and four receptacles, such as a sample case, a dress-suit case, a leather grip and a canvas grip. "Defendants," said His Worship, "stated that though part of their .business is that of common carriers, they also carry on business other than that of common carriers, and that they received the goods in question as express or hackmen plying for hire." On the evidence, His Worship found this to be the fact. Defendants* cart, or express, was on the stand at* New Plymouth, plying for hire. It was a licensed express, open for hire. TheMagistrate, in reviewing citations from jurists and writers submitted by counsel for plaintiff, said he had not been ablia to find any authority, textual or judicial, in which it is said that ordinary hack carters (denominated generally as expressmen in this country), plying foil casual hire and fixing the price of «achi job for themselves, are common carriers with an absolute liability in the case of loss Iby accident or any cause other, than the act of God or of the King's enemies. His Worship found, therefore, rthat the goods were not delivered to th« defendants as common carriers, but that the defendants, so far as the case wias concerned, were merely bookmen. Authorities were then cited as to what constituted a common carrier. "There was an understanding," said His Worship, "(between the parties to the action, that if the store to which the goods were to be ta'ken was shut, the defendant would! take gratuitous charge of the gopds during the night and deliver them at West's store the next morning. On the night of April 25, plaintiff arrived at New Plymouth by the 8 o'clock train, and He told defendants' expressman (on the station plying for hire) to take the goods to West's. This the expressman did, but found West's shut up, and he then drove to his stable and put the horse in a stable and the express infk. shed. The : goods remained in the express shed and: l were accidentally destroyed by fire. | Plaintiff contended that it was negligence on the part of defendants to put the goods in the shed, and that, dehors his liability as a common carrier, he is liable for negligence as a bailee. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that | at the time the goods were hold by defendants as involuntary On the evidence he was bound to .:old that the plaintiff tacitly assented to the method | of keeping the goods adopted by defendants. Plaintiff might have stored the goods with defendants, but was willing to run the slight risk of storing them anthe express in the stuble. Judgment was given for tke defendants, with the usual costs, and security for appeal was fixed at £llO. Mr. W. Arnold appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. F. G. Dalziell •for defendants.