A WAIROA CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1945, 29 November 1906, Page 3

A WAIROA CASE.

Mr Barton, S M., gave judgment yesterday in the case of James Hyde v. John C. Tonkin, Manager of tnc Wuiroo and Alohaka Steamship Company. _ This case was hoard by his Worship on his last visit to Wairoa, judgment being reserved : " Plaintiff claims to recover from tho defendant tho sum of .£2B 9s 9d, being tho value of goods and morchaudiso and charges thereon, delivered to tho dofonas carrier for delivery to the plaintiff on or about the 10th and 12th days of April, 1900, and which the defendant has not delivered to, tho plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff has boon deprived of and has let itio said packages and their come

The facts of tho case, which are no;, in

dispute, aro as follows: Tho goods in question were on the dates named shipped on board tho defendant’s steamer Tangaroa, at hapier, by Alessrs Robjohus, Hiudmarsh and Co , consigned to plaintiff at Turiroa. Tue goods were conveyed to Wairoa and landed and placed in defendant’s shod at North Clydo. From the evidence it appears that tho custom for many years has been to land all goods consigned to Turiroa at Wairoa, to await a suitable opportunity of sending them to Turiroa, situate about six miles further up the river. This is usually done by a smaller steamer than the one bringing them from Wairoa to Napier. While the goods were in tho shed it caught lire and

ail tho goods the subject of this action were destroyed. It is admitted that defendant was a common carrier, and as such entered into a contract to safely convey the goods in question from Napier to Tuiriroa. Defendant denies liability on the ground that it has been the custom for many years to land all guods consigned to Turiroa at Wairoa, and allow them to romain in the shed and await a suitable opportunity of forwarding them to their destination, and that defendant’s liability as carrier was suspended during tho time the goods were in the shed at Wairoa, and that while there they were held by defeudaM as warehousemen. With tins emseniion I am unable to agree. The consiaus being to oarry the goods from Napier fro Turiroa, defendant's liability oonsinued until delivery there. By She Common Carriers law carriers are bound to deliver, and are responsible for loss of goods unless they are prevented from delivering them by the act of God or toe King’s enemies, or by soma act contributing to the loss on the pact of tho consignor. Tho goods were loaded at Wairoa for tho defendant's convenience, and nothing has been Bhosvn whiob, in my opinion, relieves she defendant from his

liability as oommon carder. lam there - fora of opinion shat defendant is liable. Tue value of tho giods not being in dis* puto, judgment will bo for plaimiff for tha amount claimed, £23 9j 9J, ousts of Court £1 10s, onierieg plaint 10s, so'icUoc’a fee £2 25.” Mr Ghrisp for plaintiff, Mr Lusk for defendant.