THE ACTION AGAINST THE TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1998, 23 January 1890, Page 3

THE ACTION AGAINST THE TIMARU HARBOUR BOARD.

The bearing of: tbe important case Shaw, Savill and Albion Company (Ltd.) v the Timaru Harbour Board, on appeal, was commenced before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on December 3rd. Present —The Lord Chancellor, Lord Brauawell, Sir Barnes Peacock, and Sir Richard Coucb. This was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zsaland of May 7th, 1888, whereby, on a motion by the respondents for a nonsuit or a new trial in an action in the Supreme Court, a verdict obtained by the appellants for £15,500 and £17,302, the respective value of their ship Lytteltoo f andits cararo wa*, set aßide and judgment entered for the respondents. Mr Finlay, ,Q C, Mr Clark and Mr Lanriston Batten were counsel for the appellants ; Sir Horace Davey, Q.C., Mr W. R. Kennedy, Q.C., and Mr Lush-Wi'son for tbe respondent. The action was brought by lhs appellants against the respondents in the Supreme Court of New Zealand (Canterbury distriet) to recover the value of the ship Lyttoltou, 1110 tons register, nud Us Cisrgo, ub damage tor the alidad negligence and default of Mr Storm, thu deputy harbor-master and pilot of the poit of I Timaru, who was in the sarvice of the respondents, whereby the vessel was wholly lost in June, 1886, while in that harbor. Among other defences raised by the respondents was that the appellants had not complied with the provisions of the Harbours Act, 1878, which enacted that no plaintiff should recover in any action against any harbor board unless the suit was commenced within three months after tbe act was committed, and unless notice had been given to the defendant one month previously to the commencement of such intended actioD, specifying its cause. The action was tried at Wellington in New Zsaland, before Mr Justice Richmond and a Bpecial jury, and afier laatiDg nine days the jury found a verdict for the appellants. The Court of Appeal afterwards (by a majority of the Judges) directed judgment to be entered for the respondents, on the ground of want of proper notice of action under the Harbours Act. From this decision the appeal was brought. The case was unfinished when their lordships rose for the day,