LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1626, 18 December 1912, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. (Before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M.) THE PORT CHARGES & N.Z-S. COSTEAMERS' SHORT CALLS. EOR STEVEDORES Oil BUNKERS. "WHEN AKE THEY LIABLE? Quite an interesting snipping case came before the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when the Wellington Harbour Board claimed to recover .£7B 7s. lOd. from the New Zealand Shipping Co., Ltd; ,£4l Is. Bd. was for port charges respecting the steamer Paparoa (4930 tons at twopence per ton) and ,£37 Gs. 2d. respecting tho steamer Kaikoura {4-177 tons' at 2d. per ton). Mr. T. Sliailer Weston appeared for the Harbour Board, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant company. Practice With Respect to Stevedores. Mr. Weston said that it was a custom of the New Zealand Shipping Company when their vessels were loading meat at Wanganui or Waitara to take stevedores from Wellington to those ports. Wheu the loading at the roadsteads was concluded the ships brought the men back, and, in order to avoid tho steamers having to pay dues for coming inside tho port, the company chartered a tug, which met the steamer outside the Heads, and 'brought them into Wellington. In the case of the Kaikoura, the vessel had been to Waitara to load meat, and was bringing stevedores back. A tug went outside the Heads to meet her, but as the weather was rough it was considered unsafe to transfer the men in the Strait, so the steamer came inside the Heads, and the transfer was made in Worscr Bay. The board contended that tho vessel was, therefore,- liable to port dues. Under Section 117 of the Harbour Boards Act, 1908, vessels putting into any port through stress of weather were exempt from dues. But in this case the vessel herself was [ not in any danger.

The Papnroa's circumstances were slightly different. She was on her way from the south to Waitara, hnd she signalled to the ; -Wellington harbourmaster to havo a tug sent out with stevedores aboard. T.he lug, with the men, met tho vessel in the .Strait, but the _ captain nevertheless decided to come into the , harbour for bunker coal. The stevedores 'were not taken on hoard in the Strait,, but inside the harbour. • The defence . set up by the company was that, as tho steamer had to come in for bunker coal she was entitled to take the stevedore? on board, too, without payiw; harbour dues. The clause in the bylaws, which applied, was clause 17, which stated that the owners of the vessel should he exempt if tho vessel .came in for the purpofe of receiving bunker coal 'only, and. did not lie-at a wharf. The object of that by-law was to encourage vessels to coal at' Wellington. "Whv is the N.Z. Shipping Co. Singled Out?" Mr. Myers said that with regard to the Kaikoura, the vessel was not in distress, and it struck one as peculiar that the New Zealand Shipping Company should be singled out. , Mr, Weston: There is no question of singling out. Mr. Mvers: There is, and I will show you. ' And it is a matter of importance to the public. Frequently vessels come into Worsor Bay for shelter, and the Kaikoura was. iu that position; and why the Harbour Board should soek to charge the New Zealand Shipping Company when it lets other ships off in the same circumstances I.cannot understand. That is by the way-; but it is a matter of Harbour Board administration, and it is important to the public. There should be equality. Mr. Weston: There is equality. "A Monstrous Thing." Mr. Myers then-went on to remark that the ense of the- Paparoa was on an entirely different footing. . His contention was that so long, as the purpose of tho vessel in coming into port was to receivo only, bunker coal 'she was not liable. In this case it was a' monstrous thing that the Harbour Board should attempt to charge the vessel. . . Decision was reserved. THE UNION'S GAS. Ernest AV.-6. Coleridge, architect, Wellington, , sued tho Wellington section of the New Zealand branch of the .Australian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers for £1 195., as money paid by plaintiff for gas burned by defendant for -heating the union offices, which tho union was renting from plaintiff/ ; ■ Mr. E. 11. Hadfield appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr..P. J. O'Esgan for tho defendant. _ ~ In addressing the Court, Mr. Hadfield said that the case was almost a special one. In the agreement under which tho premises.were let it was laid down that the landlord (the plaintiff) was to pay all rates and taxes, and the point was whether, in view of this, the tenant had to pay for the gas. The defendant union held that it was not liable for the gas. Mr. O'Began said that the conduct of the plaintiff showed that it was never contemplated that the gas should come within the terms of the agreement. The union paid for the electric light, but not for the gas, and they were not billed for the gas until there had been a delay of over four years, and then only shortly after giving notice to quit the premises. I He contended that by this conduct plainI tiff was estopped. ~,,,., , ' , I His Worship said that judgment would be delivered to-morrow.

DISPUTE ABOUT TIMBER. Dr. irArthur, S.M., delivered judgment in the case in which Prouse Lumber, Ltd., sued Peter M'Ewen, tram conductor. The plaintiff company, by means of its liquidator (James Trevor) sued the defendant for .£73 6s. 3d. for timber supplied. Tho liquidator agreed to reduce the amount, on consideration of the re-, ceipt of a substantial payment, to .£59, which amount he was prepared to abide by. Tho defendant alleged that there was an arrangement between him and tho managing director of the company where•by tho defendant was to pay half the timber account in cash and the balance at the rate of £1 per month. "Tho managing director admitted that he did say that the defendant could go on paving £1 per month," said his Worship, '"althoughno agreement was made to that effect. The company is now in liquidation. In my opinion such a vague arrangement be held binding." Tho defendant countcrclaimed for Mi 10s. lid., as commission at the rate of 5 per cent on orders for timber. Judgment was for the plaintiff on. the claim for £59; and for defendant on tho counterclaim for £6 Os. 3d. PURCHASE OP VEHICLE. William Thomas Hildreth sued William Stephen Jenkins, carrier, for £5 as money owing for an express. Defendant denied that ho had ever purchased the vehicle; he said that ho had simply sent a man named Arthur Nows along to-Hildreth as a buyer for the cart. Judgment was for the plaintiff for tho amount claimed with costs. UNDEFENDED CASES. In tho following cases judgment was entered for tho plaintiffs by default:—La-vr-ranco Spyer v. Edward Llewellyn Potts, 125., costs 2s-.; Samuel Brown, Ltd. v. Richard Wedderspoon. £2 Os. Gd. and lis.; CharlesTannoll and Co. v. Montague Hill, £1 lis. 9d. and £\ 3s. (id.; George Doughty and Co. v. J. M'N. Bryant, .£lB 19s. Sd. and £1 10s. 6d.; Edward Cullon Little v. M. V. Hill, .£l2 and fA 10s. Gil.; Kirkoaldie and Stains, Ltd. v. I'redk. Cecil Ambridgo, fi-llls. 9d. and 10s.; .same v. William iM'Millan, .£0 9s. and ,C 1 ss. Gd.; samo v. A. H. Light, £i is. and 10s.; same v. Joo Harrop, £2 4s. Gd. ami 10s.; Stone, Son, and Co., Ltd. v. Arthur H. S. Lucas, 12s. Gd. and 55.; same v. Peter Hoyes, XI 103. and 10s.; samo v. John H. Urry, £\ 3s. 6d. and 55.; Public Trustee (administrator of tho estate of Ann Tetloy) v. Jam«s Gurdinor, jCO 13a. and &\ 3a. Bd.; John Nortoa v. Arthur Peters,

£1 lis. 9d. and 10s.; fame v. G. Bourke, XI Ts. Gd. and 55.; fame v. ,T. F. Cain, £i Ss. and lCs.; Thomas Brown v. Martin Dalley, £7 12s. 3d. and JSI ,Is. Gd.; Gilbert ,T. Jlockav v. C. Jack, ,£l7 4s. 9d. and £1 ids. Gd.; Launder and Co. v. R. Ncal, £1 15*. and 55.; Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Co., Ltd., v. n. Martclli, £S fe. and Ss.; E. Reynolds and Co., Ltd., v. Willi-im Sheridan, 2is. lid. and .£1 35.; E. E. Heiidricksun v. P. N. G. AVakelin, £G 15s. fid. and XI Bs. 6(1.; F. N. R. Meadows v. A. H. Adams, £2 15s. nmd 55.; S. tfoblxs v. C. R. P. Eden, X 5 ss. and XI 3s. Gd. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. J. S. Fawcett was ordered to pay S. and AV. Mackay X 8 19s. by January 16; and Cecil H. Biss was ordered to pay James M. Ferguson .613 12s. 6d. by monthly instalments of XI.

POLICE BUSINESS. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.SI.) SHOPS BROKEN INTO. YOUNG MEN BEFORE COURT. In the Police Court James O'Neill, a yonng; man, was charged with having broken and entered the shop of Andrew Begjjs on November "0, and stolen one tin of biscuits, 20lb. of tobacco, n.nd a metal watch, of the total value of .£6 15s. ; of having and entered the shop of Kwong On on November 20, and stolen £1 2s. and 25 packets of cigarettes; and of having broken and entered the shop of Yee Wah on December 8, and stolen about M 3 10s. in money, • and about. 25 packets of cigarettes. The cases were adjourned till December 24. Thomas Ridaut, a wharf labourer, was charged with having received from Walter Krausch 201b. of tobacco (valued at £6), beionsring to Andrew Beggs, tho defendant ■ knowing the tobacco to have bc«n dishonestly obtained. , On the application of the police, Ridaut was remanded till .December 2-1., Bail was allowed. NEWTOWN BURGLARY. THE SUSPECT REMINDED. George Waters was charged with having broken and entered the dwelling of William Joseph Davies, Newtown, on Monday, and stolen a suit of clothes and a watch,, of the total value of £G. Sub-Inspector Sheehan asked that the case would be adjourned for a week. The request was granted, and the subinspector remarked-that-.it was probable that at the end of that period he would have to ask for ' another adjournment. "HAD PAID FOR A BED." John Shannon pleaded not guilty to- a charge that he was a rogue and a vagabond in that lie had been unlawfully in the R«?d Light Beardiughouse, 42 Ghuznes Street, kept by Donald.Jl'DonaW. Shannon asserted that he had paid for a bed at the house. Shannon was sentenced to three months imprisonment. INSOBRIETY. Por insobriety, William lewis was fined £1.