DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3982, 29 November 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, November 29. (Before his Honor Judge Bathgate.)

Otvqo Harbor Board v. Houghton and OTHERS. —This was an action to recover 1.160 18s 4d on wharfage dues, etc.—947,542 feet of timber, at 4d per 100 feet. 1.167 18s 4d ; and 14,050 laths, thirty tons, at 2s per ton, I 3 Mr Stout appeared for the Board, and Mr Smith for the defendants. The defence was that the Board had no power to charge jetty dues on the material specified-, the same not having been landed in any place at which it had a rivh* to charge. '1 he timber had been landed on the reclaimed ground. -Mr Marsh, collector to the Board, deposed that when the first raft was loaded he gave notice to defendants that payment would be demanded. They asked him to let the matter stand over till all the timber had been landed, and when he did so they resisted payment, on the ground that it had not been landed on the wharf. —Mr Smith contended that the Board must be nonsuited, plaintiffs having entirely failed to bring defendants within the purview of any Acts or Ordinances under which the Board-dcrives its powers. Under the Marine Act there timid be no doubt that the Superintendent had power to delegate certain authority to the Harbor Boaid—the power to levy dues amongst others. There was not sufficient proof of his Honor’s signature to the delegation.—His Honor (to the Board’s secretary) : Did you say that you saw his Honor’s signature to the delegation ?-Mr Gillies : His Honor signed it in my presence —Mr Smith : Then that disposes of my objection. The evidence fai’s to show that the timber in question was landed at the several wharves mentioned in the Board’s regulation. The regulation purports to only cfa-ge jetty dues on certain wharves—at the Jettystreet wharf, the Rattray street wharf, the Stuart street wharf, and the Pelichet Bay wharf—and no other places. The scope of the be limited to the language used by the Legislature. Judgment reserved.