THE LIGHTERAGE QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 4022, 17 January 1876, Page 3

THE LIGHTERAGE QUESTION.

In the Resident Magistrate’s Court to-day Mr Bathgate, R.M., delivered the following judgment in the action brought by the Harbor Board v. William Goldie, of Port Ch -liners, for berthage dues The plaintiff sues for berthage dues on five, lighters, for the half-year ending 31st December last. The defendant contendslst. That the regulation fixing berthage dues is -ultra vires, the Superintendent having only power to impose dues “ for the use of wharves"; and 2nd. The regulation is also ultra vires on the grounds of its being unreasonable. It bus been proved that the defendant’s lighters have frequently used the Dunedin jetty for discharging coals, during the time stated in the claim, and that no dues have been paid by him. By bye-law and regulation gazetted 2nd July, 18/5, the jetty dues are fixed for “ berthage.” Vessels trading within the Port are to pay a quarterly rate ; sailing, vessels trading beyond the Port are to pay omr farthing a ton per day. Berthage is a charge for a vessel lying at a wharf, the word “ berth ” according to the Imperial dictionary meaning “any situation, or place where a vessel lies, whether at anchor or at a wharf.” The charge of berthage is therefore a charge for the use of the jetty by the vessel, and I am of opinion that the Board, under the delegated power from tho Superintendent, has power to impose and levy such a charge. It has not been objected that the Board has power to impose andjlevy a rate for each time a foreign-going sailing vessel or steamer uses the Jetty. But it is coat ended that the Board has no power to impose a quarter’s rate alleged to be in itsolf unreasonable. It is clear that the quarterly rate was intended to be a concession in favor of local traders. For example, the Result, one of the defendant’s lighters, would i'.ave beeu liable according to the foreigngoing sailing vessels rate to paym ut of scl cadi day it was alongside the Jetty. Under the bye-law he may vise the Jetty daily for 20s a quarter, whereas if he payed for {each day of the quarter separately ho would have to pay LI 18s 4d. Being of opinion that tho Board has power to impose and levy a bcrtliage rate, and seeing that there is no restriction in tho statute in regard to the period for whic it is? to be imposed, whether daily, quarterly, or otherwise, and that the quarterly mode of payment by .local traders is a concession in their favor, thoy bring thereby entitled to the daily use of the wharves and jetties at lower rates than other vessels; and bring also saved trouble in the manner of payment, I am unable to sustain the pleas for the defendant. Besides these charges were duly gazetted. IftLe defendant had any objection to the rates imposed, it was his duty to have questioned the authority of the Biurd by immediate proceedings iu li ic Supivmo Court, or at least to have intimated his intention to object to the same. His using the jetty without tender of payment ia any way, and without objection, may be considered as a waiver on his part of any objections, and by an agreement to pay the rates as published. The Harbor Board exists for the benefit of traders, and tho revenue is expended on the improvement and maintenance of the harbor and jellies. If the local traders find the charges against; them to operate unequally, their first duty is to make a i epresentation to the Board to got them ?u'terecl. lam unable at present to hold that the rat as charged are unreasonable, no p> evions complaint halving beeu made. There being no authority for changing the dues in advance, judgment will only ba: given for the first quarter, the claim being allow® d to be amended accordingly. Judgment for the plan itiff for L6los and costs.