1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Haulier liable for stolen scrap
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• F. Dickson Transport Ltd., of Kingston Road, Wimbledon, SW, was held liable in the High Court last Friday for a theft from its lorry of 10 tons of mixed scrap brass which it was carrying from London to Porth, Glamorgan, in January last year.
The theft took place from Dickson's premises. The" lorry was driven away while the premises were unattended during the evening, and later recovered, without its load, from East London.
Mr. Justice Megaw entered judgment with costs for the consignors, E. J. Webster Ltd., of Bow, London, E3, for the value of the 1oad—£2,340 12s 7d.
The judge rejected a contention by the consignors that Dickson was a common carrier, but was satisfied that the carriage was on the basis of the Road Haulage Association's conditions. He held, however, that an express term was added to the conditions, to the effect that during the night a laden lorry, if not proceeding direct to its destination, should be left on the Webster premises.
The judge said he was satisfied that that agreement was made after part of a load of Webster's metal had been stolen from a lorry at Dickson's yard in January, 1966. He was satisfied that it was a legal agreement, and not a mere option of a facility granted by Webster. Mr. John Hobhouse, for Dickson Transport, had conceded that Webster's yard was more secure than Dickson's, being adjacent to a police station, illuminated at night, and guarded by a watchman. But he denied that the alleged express term existed.
The judge said the term was not put into writing, but was not denied when put for ward by Webster's solicitors.
He was not satisfied that Dickson Transport had committed any breach of the duty it owed to Webster, other than its failure to comply with the express term.