THE LAUNCH ILKA.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 310, 17 October 1929, Page 1

THE LAUNCH ILKA.

MATAMATA MAN’S APPEAL Upheld in Supreme Court. r At the Auckland Supreme Court 1 last week the appeal of Harold A. 1 N. Blackburn, formerly of Matamata [ and now of Dargaville, in connection l with litigation over the ownership of i the fishing launch Ilka, was upheld , by Mr. Justice Kennedy. A mishap occurred to the Ilka in the Hauraki Gulf in February, 1928. The engine broke down, and the crew abandoned the launch and were picked up by the liner Niagara, then outward bound from Auckland to Sydney. Great interest was taken in tr.e plight of the men by the passengers, and money was freely raised on their behalf to enable them to return from Sydney to Auckland. When

they did come back it was found that the launch had not been completely lost, but had been cast ashore, recovered and taken to Whangarei. The Ilka was owned by Blackburn. Cyril Ledger and a third partner in a fishing business. When one of the partners sold it a civil action followed, and Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., decided the case in favour of the plaintiff, Cyril Ledger, it was this decision that was appealed against ) on fact and on law, and that has now been decided in favour of the j appellant Blackburn. J The plaintiff in the Magistrate’s j Court, who was respondent in the appeal, Cyril Ledger (Mr. Trimmer), j alleged that the defendant, Harold

Blackburn (Mr. Quartley), was the grantee of an instrument by way of security over the launch and wrongfully seized the launch and sold it at auction on April 16, 1928. Each partner owned a third share in the launch. Blackburn advanced money to the other two to enable them to buy their shares, and the partners assigned by way of mort- | gage their shares to secure the sum so advanced. His Honor held that | the launch was sufficiently large to be a “ vessel ” within the meaning of ‘the Chattels Transfer Act, and therefore the assignment was not an instrument by way of security within the meaning of the Act. No facts appeared which authorised the defendant to realise his security. The seizure of the launch was in fact a mere matter of words rather than of substance, and the defendant after the sale remained owner of one-third share and mortgagee of the other two one-third shares.