Turner gave judgment in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the case of Messrs. G. N. Marshall W. H. Reeves, which was a claim for lighterage of' the str. Galato December, 1923. Plaintiff' claim for Tls. 1,437 was allowed, with costs, and on the counterclaim for delay' due to an insufficient supply of lighters, defendant was awarded £120, demurrage at the ij sereed sum of £40 per da; Mr. M. Reader Harris appeared for plaintiffs and Mr J. R. Jones for defend His Lordship, in giving judgment said: This is an. action for lighterage, and the defence raises the point that the defendant is not personally liable, that he was only [lable as representing the principal in England, and that it was to that principal to whom plaintif(s should look for performance of the contract, Yighters, That to my mind is clear, and it ws demurrage on the ship was fixed at £40 a day. It me that the only int pretation one can put upon that is that damages were fixed at the rate of £40 per day for delay due to insufficient provision of light ers. T have therefore to decide how many days' delay was: caused by the insufficient provision of lighters. On that there has been a good deal of evidence called, and it is not very easy to get at the exact position. It is admitted there was rome delay, It seems to me the right position for me to take is upon the first report made by Captain Miller immediately after the discharge of this ship's cargo was completed. This report states that there were three days' dela due to want of sufficient lighter and the result of this three days delay no doubt threw the ship for ove or two days over the holidays. In these circumstances, I find that three days' delay resulted from insufficient provision of lighters, and there will accordingly be judgment for defendant for £120° on the counterclaim.
As I prefer-to get rid of any discussion as to the date on which the rate of exchange should be caleulat ed, I shall sot the date as the when the breach of contract took place, which I think was December 27, 1923, There will therefore be judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, with costs, and for defendant for three days' delay 440 a day, at exchange ruling en December 27, 1923.
The contract ix contained in letters, There is no. suggestion that there is any other document or anything else except the letters to look ta for the contract, and on the! contract there is no doubt in mind that defendant, partner in a firm Ynown as the Anglo-Danish Shipping Ca, made himself and his firm personally liable for the price of this lighterage. The owners of the hip for whom defendant was agent here are in England and, prima facie on the contract for lighterage cargo entered into here by the agent for the ship in his own name, without any reference to the own-cers of the ship he would be lable, In these circumstances the plaintiff entitled to judgment for the full amount of the claim because he Now comes the second point, which is something more peculiar. There is a claim which really amounts to a elafin for damages for delay in lightering this cargo owing to an insufficient. supply of light The contract provided that.
intiffs were to provide sufficient. lighters at one time to discharge the steamer can deliver!
understand the position, there
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.