A Gisborne Appeal Case.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 457, 22 May 1890, Page 2

A Gisborne Appeal Case.

A DISPUTED RESPONSIBILITY. (XBOM OUB OWN OOMESBOSDXXI.) Auckland, last eight. At the Supreme Court to day, in the case of the Colonial Union Company v. Common Shelton and Co., an appeal from tho decision of the Resident Magistrate at Glsborno, la which judgment baa been given against tho appellants in respect of a claim for £34 18s, value qf certain goods shipped by one of their chartered steamers, at London, for Gisborne, Mr 0. E. Button appeared for the appellants. There was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Mr Button said this was a case which involved a very important principle, and it waa to bb regretted that there was not an appearance on the other aide. Thia was an appeal by the defendant Company from a decision given by Mr Booth. Resident Magistrate at Gisborne, on the 17ih of March, 1890, in respect of a claim made by W. Common and F. J. Shelton against tho Colonial Union Company, trading at Napier, for £34 18s, as the value of oertain goods entrusted to ths defendant Company on or about the 14th June, 1884, to be safely carried from London to Wellington by the steamer Clairmont, and to be transhipped there tor Gisborne, at the defendant Company's expense; to be delivered there to Harbert Jooyln, agent for the Company, within reasonable time. Some of the goods were pillaged, and others were not landed. The R.M. held that the bill of lading formed tho contract between tho defendant Company, its charterers, and plaintiffs, for carriage and delivery of the said goods, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant Company for £34 18s and £4 Is costa. The question for His Honor's consideration was therefore was ths RM. right ? Mr Button also read the charter party, an agreement made on the 28th February, 1888, between the North British Shipping Company and the Colonial Union Company (Limited), and contended that in terms of this document the whole responsibility was sccepted by the shippers and owners of the steamer, as distinguished from tho charterers, as soon as the cargo in question was on board. The real question was, under such a charter as this, whose agent was master of the ship in signing the bill of the lading ? ’l’here were other questions, but those wore subsidiary. He also quoted numerous authorities to support the contention that in the absence of any distinct stipulation to the contrary the ehip owner hod to take all responsibility for the cargo after it had been put on board, and that the master of the vessel signed the bill of lading for the owner, and not the charterers. His contention waa that in the case in question the owners were the tesponsible parties to Common Shelton and Co., and not the charterer, and there waa also the question whether or not the charterers were liable as well as the shippers, His Honor said ho would take time to consider his decision.