CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 November 1915, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

SEQUEL TO CORINNA'S ACCIDENT. CHANGE OF VENUE GRANTED. Some little time ago tlie Union Steamship Co.'s steamer Corinna met with an accident, while leaving Wellington with a cargo for New Plymouth, and a test case involving a claim for damages against the company has been prepared b.v a consignee in this district, it being understood that if this consignee should succeed some merchants and other consignees in Taran&ki will also proceed against the company. The case which is to be employed as a test case concerns a claim by James S. Fox, Okato, against the Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand, for damages concerning goods consigned to the plaintiff, which were on board the Corinna at the time of the accident. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Mr. A. C. Lawrey applied, on, behalf of the Union Steamship Company, for a change of venue of the case from New Plymouth to Wellington, and the application was opposed by Mr D. Hutchen, on behalf of the plaintiff. Tlie application was made on the following grounds:—(l) That the cause of action (if any) arose in Wellington: (2) that the action can be more conveniently tried in the Court at Wellington; (3) that the defendants' witnesses are resident in Wellington: and (4) that the action should have been commenced in Wellington. Mr. Lawrey ' said the grounds for the application were fully set out in this statement, and he could, add nothing to it. Mr. Hutchen said the case was a claim based on a breach of contract, and it would be very extraordinary if the plaintiffs in such case could compel the defendant to bring the case up for hearing in an out-of-the-way place. The Magistrate: You don't call Wellington an out-of-the-way place, do you? Mr. Hutchen: No: but it is just an accident that the place they want it heard in is a city. They may have applied to have the case heard in Jericho. Continuing, Mr. Hutchen contended that it was right to bring an action at the place where the action arose, for the •whole or material part of the action arose at the port of delivery, which was New 'Plymouth. The Teal cause for the action was non-delivery of goods at New Plymouth, as was contracted by the defendant company. The breach of the contract was performed at New Plymouth, and this was the material part of the action, and therefore he contended that the case should be heard at New Plymouth. The material witnesses for the plaintiff were here, and he pointed out that no matter where the case was heard some of the witnesses on one side or the other could not be at that place to give evidence. Mr. Lawrey submitted that from the facts set out in the affidavit there was not the slightest doubt that Wellington was the more convenient place to hear the ease. The case arose from an accident which took place in Wellington harbor, and concerned cargo wh'.ch was unloaded at Wellington. The Magistrate said the onlc j,;irt of the action which was material to New Plymouth was the delivery of the goods here, and he thought this part of the action was small. At this stage Mr. Hutchen interposed and suggested that the Magistrate might look at the cases he had cited before deciding the point. The witnesses at New Plymouth would provide the. most material evidence. This case was going to turn on the amount of the damage and the evidence upon that point, and more .material evidence on that point would be given here than at Wellington. The Magistrate then made an order for a change of venue to Wellington as asked for.