LOWER COUNT

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1628, 20 December 1912, Page 8

LOWER COUNT

(JJofom Hi'. M'Ailhur, &M.)

lIARHOUK HOARD & N-Z.S- CO

TWO StEAMEiir-

onr r.iAuiiK-o'i'jrKU km;mi'T.

In Iho iMnsistratc's C'imil yoslnnlu.v Dr. M'ArlhurV imlKineiil was i'piml in the cum- in wliii-li Ihn W'plllnslnii ItuMjiiiii' Hoiird I'lnimi'il Ui ri'i'iivi'i' .p\ 7?. Kid. fi'nm Ilu> New Zcnliiiul fliipp'ns, ( ■»-, .Mil.; JJJ I In. M, w«s fur purl i-llorßua rosspi'otiiiK til" ulcunicr J/iipiiron (■tilllll Unis nl, Iwojionro p?r ton) nml :£'\'i (is. Utl. respoi'tinit I In , s.lciiHH'l , Kiiiluiuni (41m lons nl 2d. pet . Ion). At tho hrariiiß of Hip mso Mr. I. Shnilor Woston, who nppi'iired for the Hnriimir Hourd, tniil Unit it wns u ciirloin of Ilio Ninv /enlniKl Hhippiim <.'ompnnv when thpir vpssds werfl'lundiiiß iiiuiit nt \ViiiiL'nniii or Wuiliim In Inko Movndnivs from Wellinistnu lo Uioro ports. IVJieii the londiim "I: H" , ronilstends iw concluded Ihn ships liroii(tllt the men back, iintl, in order lo avoid Hip slcninprs having to pay dues for conniiß msiilo Iho port, tho company i-liiirlm-'d n I ui;. which met tho stPiuiior outside the Heads, and brought tlicm iiili) Wellington. tn iho cupo nf Hie Knikoura, the vessel had been lo \Vnilar.i I" l»ml nieal, ami was briiunni? stevedores liack. A luk wuiit out.siilc tho Heads to meet her, bnl; n? the weather was rough it wns considered unsafe (o transfer (lie men in Ilio Strait, so the steamer' eamo inside tho Heads, and the transfer was made in Worscr Bay. The board contended that the vessel was, therefore, liable to port dues. Under Section 117 of the Harbour Boards Act, inns, vessels putting into any port through stress of weather were exempt from (lues. But in this etwlhc vessel herself was not in any danger. The t'aparoa's circumstances were slightly different. She was on her way from the Ffliith to Waitara, and she signalled to tho AVellington harbourmaster to hav-j a tug sent out with stevedores aboard. The tug, with the men, met the vessel in the Strait, but the captain nevertheless decided to conic into the harbour for bunker coal. Tho stevedores were not taken on board in tho Strait, but insido the harbour.

The defence set up by tho company, Mr. Weston said, was that, us tho Pnpriroa had to come in for bunker coal she was.entitled to take tho stevedores on board, too, without paying harbour dues. The clause in the by-laws, which anulied, was Clause 17, which stated that theowners of the vessel should bo exempt if the vessel came in for the purpose 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 Wei linglpn. . ; Jfr. Jlyers, counsel for the defendant company, contended as regarded the- I'nparoa that so long as tho purpose o'ftiie" vessel in coming into port was to receive only bunker coal she was not liable. In this case it whs a monstrous thing that the Harbour Board should attempt to ■charge the vessel. Respecting • the Kaikoura, Mr. Myers said that frequently, vessels' caiiio into W.orser Bay for shelter, and the Kaikoura was in that position; and why the HitrbouiV Board should seek to charge the New Zealand Shipping Company when it let other ships oft' in tho same circumstances he could not understand. . . '

:' "In my opinion, the s.s. Paparoa is exempt," said his Worship, in the course of the judgment, "as she called into port, solely for die purpose of receiving bunker coal, and did not receive or discharge any cargo within tile port, Tho fact that she tc'oic on board stevedores while in port does not, I consider, infringe the by-law, ■which reads: 'Vessels arriving in port for tho purpose of receiving only bunker coal . . . which do not receive or discharge any cargo within the port, shall be exempt from port charges.' . . . That which would make her liable would bo the reception or discharge of cargo." . Tho Kaikoura, his AVorship considered, was on a different footing. She was not in distress at the time of her- coming into port, and therefore did not' come within :the exemptions., .

In his Worship's opinion the Paparoa was exempt, and the Kaikoura liable. ' r Judgment- was for the plaintiff for .£37 GS. 2(1. . ;

; UNION'S GAS. PLAINTIFF LOSES, THE CASE. Dr. IT Arthur's decision was delivered in' the case iu which Ernest V. U. Coleridge, architect, Wellington/ sued tho Wellington section of the New Zealand branch of tho Australian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers for ,«ii7 IDs., as money paid by piaintiif for gas burned by defendant lor Heating the union offices, which tho union was renting from plaintift". : At the hearing, Mr. E. 11. Hadfield appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. P. J. (J'Regan for the defendant,

In addressing the Court, Mr. Hadfield said that the case was almost n special one. In the agreement under which tho premises wore let it was laid down that the landlord (the plaintiff) was to pay.all rates and taxes, and the point was who-, tlier, in view of this,' the tenant had to pay for tho gas. The defendant union held that it was not liable for tho gas. Mr. O'Regan 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 tho electric light, but hot for the gas, and they wero not billed for tho gas until there had been a .delay of over four years, and then only shortly, after giving notice to qWt the premises. He contended that by this conduct plaintiff was estopped.

His Worship said that it did not appear necessary to go beyond an authority quoted, which, in his opinion, was absolutely against the plaintiff's ease. However, on the equity.and good.conscience clause the plaintiff had no claim, inasmuch that for over four years he had accepted the ordinary rent without any claim for the gas account, . . . Judgment was for the defendant.

UNDEFENDED CASES. (Before : Mr. W. G.. Eiddell, S.M.) .T. B. Clarkson and Co., Ltd., were Riven judgment by default against C. .Tones and Co., Ltd., for £26 15s. 9d., with costs £1 ss. ' POLICE CASES. (Before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) .. BOY LIVING IN THE SCEUB.. STEALING HIS FOOD. Albert Edward Thompson,' a boy of eighteen years, was convicted and ordered to appear for sentence when called on respecting three charges of tho theft of food and. cutlery, valued at,£l, from the whare of A. H. Griffiths, at Seatouu. Chief-Detective Broberg stated that, the boy was a son of a respectable widow. Ho had gone to employment in the South Island, but had not found it congenial, and had left. Not feeling disposed'to live on. his mother he had, ou coming to Wellington, .lived among tho scrub ou the hills at Seatotm, and had furnished himself with food by stealing from the residents thereabouts., '■OTHER CASES. . ' ■ / . For insobriety, Lena Petersen was fined ,£l, Edwnrd Fahey 10s., and James Cass 10s. Julia Fowler was fined £1 for having importuned passers-by in Tarauaki Street. ,