IMPORTANT TO SHIPPERS AND CONSIGNEES.

West Coast Times, Issue 697, 18 December 1867, Page 2

IMPORTANT TO SHIPPERS AND CONSIGNEES.

(feom the gbet biver argus). In the Supreme Court, at Nelson, the following case came on for hearing :—: — Bentley v. Kennedy Bros. — On Ist August, 1865, the schooner Amelia Francis, Rhiiul, master, and owned by Mr Gibbous and Mr Bentley, sailed from Nelson, bound for llokitika, with a large general cargo, and was never again heard of. In the latter part of tho previous month the plaintiff, who is a general merchant iv Nelson, received tin order from defendants, who are merchants in Hokitika, for a parcel of goods to bo sent by earliest steamer or sailing vessel, if there were not room in tho steamer. In thu steamer Eleanor a portion of tho goods was sent, and the account for the same wa3 pai.l ; and in the Amelia Francis the remainder, to the value, with charges, of LSOO 13s lid, all regularly shipped, bills of lading signed and transmitted to tho defendants by the master of the schooner. The plaintiff also claimed LIOO, more or less, as interest on the amount duo from August, ISGS, to date of payment. These arc the issues scut to tho jury : — 1. Were the goods mentioned in the plaintiff's particulars of demand bargained and sold by the plaintiff to tho defendants ?

2. - Wore the said goods, or any and which of them, delivered by the plaintiff to the dofendantß ?

3. Did the defendants pay to the plain till' the sum of L 296 2s, on account of the good 3 shipped by the two vessels, in tho declaration mentioned ?

4. Are the defendants indebted to tho plaintiff in tho sum of LSOO 18s lid ? or iv any other sum, and if so, what sum ?

5. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover from tho defendants LIOO, or any other, and if so, what sum for interest ?

Tho defence was based on non-delivery of the goods, none of which, tho defendants pleaded, had been delivered to them, neither had they received bills of lading.

Proof of ordering and shipment of goods was adduced ; as also of the signing of the bills of lading. It was argued that tho order was for goods to be delivered to the defendants, and as dolivery had not been made, they were not liable. " The Judge said that, according to all commercial usage, goods onco shipped, and the bills of lading - signed, all liability of the shipper ceaaes if he is fulfilling an order, as in this case.

The plaintiff' 3 counsel claimed interest during tho non-pay re ent, but the Judge held that as the proof of Hie existence of a custom of paying Buch interest in such eases had not been proved, the jury could not find for it. Tho jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on nil the issues, except that referring to interest; and gave a verdict for L 498 15s 4d, thus deducting L 2 33*7 d, for balance of freight not previously allowed on goods in the Amelia Francis. The Judge certified^for a special jury.