LOST LUGGAGE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2593, 30 August 1909, Page 3

LOST LUGGAGE

A CARRIER’S LIABILITY. 'His Worship, Mr. W. A. c ß<^ton, S. gave judgment in Magistrate’s Court, on Saturday morning, in the case of Mary (Mr. H. Bright) v. John R. -Redstone (Mr. L. T. Burnard). In ...'delivering - judgment, his Worship said:—lt is admitted by defendant he received a box which, plaintiff-'feays contained the goods mentioned in the statement of claim, and that it was placed upon one of his coacjhes, which was driven by one John Penney, which left Gisborne for Tologa Bay at the 21st December, 1908. Defendant says that he did not book the parcel for the reason that he understood that plaintiff intended travelling to Tologa Bay with the box, and that consequently no charge was made for the Carrying of the package. Counsel for defendant contends—l. That as de-

fendant made no charge for the carrying of the parcel it was not carried for reward, and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. 2. That it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show tliat the goods were not delivered at Hauiti being the places to which they were addressed. In reference to the first point, although the carriage of the goods were not entered! in the defendant’s book, for the reason that lie thought that the plaintiff would have been charged with the carriage -had the goods not gone astray. It is admitted that the defendant, on the datedn question, was a common Carrier. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the .parcel was carried by him for reward. The only other question, therefore, is: “Were the goods delivered at Hauiti by the defendant?” It is' admitted by counsel for the plaintiff tliat if defendant conveyed the parcel to Williams’ store at Hauiti his liability ceased. After reviewing the .evidence fully his Worship added: “Having found that the defendant was, on the date in question, a common carrier, and that he carried goods for hire, I am of opinion that it is incumbent upon him to show that the parcel was duly delivered at Haimi. The witnesses' for the plaintiff simply say that to the best of their belief the parcel was not delivered at Williams’ store,

but against that there is the positive evidence of the driver, John Penney, who is now out of defendant’s service and apparently has no interest in the result of these proceedings, who says that he has a distinct recollection of delivering a box addressed to plaintiff, at Williams’ store on the 21st December, 1908, and if this evidence is true, it is clear that the box which was put into defendant’s coach at Gisborne on the 21st December, was duly delivered, as it is not suggested that more than one parcel addressed to plaintiff was delivered l to the defendant on the date in question, for conveyance to Hauiti; and that being so, I do not think that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed in this action.” His Worship suggested that as it might be possible to obtain other evidence he would grant a nonsuit. Mr. Bright concurred. Plaintiff was non-suited with costs £4 18s. t