A SHIPPING ACTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2357, 25 November 1908, Page 6

A SHIPPING ACTION.

LIABILITY OF- SHIPPING COMPANIES.

[Press Association.]

DUNEDIN, Nov,

A case of some interest to merchants and the shipping community was begun at the Magistrate’s Court this morning, before Mr. Hutchison, S.M. The plaintiffs were Andrew Lees and Henry Brooks and Co., consignees and consignors respectively of a shipment of glass that arrived by the New Zealand Shipping Co.’s s.s. Itakaia, and the defendants were the New Zealand Shipping Company. The amount of the claim wTts only £4 19s 2d for damage done to the glass in transit. But the interests affected are considerable, and the parties agreed to make it a test case. Mr. Barnard, who -appeared for the plaintiffs, said thaCThe case was to determine the liability of shipping companies for breakage of glass. A quantity of glass had been shipped from Antwerp, and transhipped at London to the company’s vessel. It was shipped in good order but when landed here some glass was damaged, to the extent claimed. The defendant company relied on certain stipulations in the bill of lading. The question was whether those conditions wore just and reasonable, and the extent to which these- conditions could hold was determined by section 300 of tbo Shipping and Seamen’s Act of 1903, of the New Zealand consolidated statutes; presuming that the New Zeala.nd Act applied to this particular bill of lading. The facts were admitted.

For the defence, Mr. Hasking, K.C., said that the iShaw, Savill amt Albion Company was incorporated in London and the ships registered in England. The New Zealand Shipping Compauy was incorporated in New (Zealand and tlio ships registered in England. On tin’s depended whether the bill of lading was to be construed according to New Zealand law or English law. The point was : Did the section in the New Zealand. Shipping and Seamen’s Act of 1903 apply? The section stated that any clause in the bill of lading providing that shipowners or agents, etc., should he relieved from liability from damage arising from improper conditions of the ship’s hold, negligence, fault, or' failure in proper loading, 'stowage, custody, care or -proper delivery of merchandise committed to their charge, shall bo null and void’ unless the Court holds it- to be. just and reasonable. The question was whether parties had not by their contract submitted to have the clause in the hill of lading .interpreted according to the law of England. Decision wa s reserved.