Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Abbott and Jones v. Skelton, 1874

[carriage of goods]


 

Abbott and Jones v. Skelton

Local Court, Palmerston
Price SM, 20 May 1874
Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 22 May 1874, p 3


 

LAW COURTS.

LOCAL COURT-PALMERSTON.

 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20.

(Before Mr. E. W. Price, S.M.)

Abbott & Jones v. Skelton.-Claim for £10 4s. for the carriage of goods on board the steamboat Pioneer.

Mr. Smith for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Barclay stated that whilst he was agent for the St. Francois in December last, Mr. Skelton asked witness to see some goods put on board the Pioneer to go to Southport. The goods were bran, barley, and chaff.

By Mr. Skelton-Heard defendant ask the captain of the Pioneer to take charge of certain goods. Some of the goods were damaged. There might have been some of the bags damaged.

Mr. Perkins stated that the bags which were not carried to Southport were not charged for. The goods were not damaged on board the steamer. The charges were reasonable, and the goods were received by Miller and Rickards.

By Mr. Skelton-Mr. Jones did not interfere with the goods at all. Could no say whether defendant's agents of Southport knew of the arrival of the goods there.

Mr. Jones said he asked Mr. Skelton to pay the freight in February last. He declined to pay; but admitted that he was liable, though he suggested that Miller and Rickards should pay the amount as the goods were in their store. Miller and Rickards refused to pay.

By Mr. Skelton-Often had to dog defendant for the amount. Other accounts might have been paid. Told defendant the goods were in Miller and Rickards's store.

Mr. Skelton called Mr. Faulks to show that his practice waa to give notice to consignees when goods were taken to Southport.

Mr. Sinclair also stated that the practice when he took goods to Southport was to give notice to consignees.

By Mr. Smith-Never took goods without a consignment note; if he had done so he should have stored the goods.

Mr. Skelton said it was well known by Mr. Barclay whom the goods belonged to; yet they were never delivered to the proper parties at Southport, who had lost considerably in consequence.

Verdict for the amount claimed.

Mr. Skelton, who had exchanged come strong personalties with one of the plaintiffs during the hearing of this case, said he would manage " to take it out of Jones yet."

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School