District Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 250, 19 November 1903, Page 2

District Court.

A sitting of the District; Court was held in the New Plymouth Courthouse on Wednesday morning. His Honor District Judge Kettle presiding. The only business was th« civil ease, Mokau Harbour Board v. the Taranaki Collieries Co., Ltd, claim £3 08 16* Id, for harbour improvement dues on coal shipped by the defendant company. Mr Roy appeared .or the I3oard, and Mr Quilliam for the Colliers Co. The defence was a denial that tho Collieries Company was indebted to the Board for any dues.

Mr Roy put in a copy of tho Mo-] kau Harbour Board's by-laws, quoting by-law 21, which stated that harbour improvement dues of 6d per ton should be levied on alll exports of goods or merchandise. Th-it- particular 'by-law was made under section 21.6 of the Harbour Act, 1878. His Honor commented cm the defendant's pleading. There* should have been a specific denial, not a general denial. Mr QuilK'am admitted tho by-Jaws as valid, but would not admit the schedule of quantities. They knew nothing about it. Mr Roy asked His Honor to decide whether the defence came under rule 95 of the District Court.

His Honor said that in any case the plain-tills would have to prove their ease. He was still of opinion that the pleading was not sufficiently specilic.

Mr Quilliam said the company had not sent any coal from the river. His Honor remarked that the statement of claim was also rather bald. Mr Roy would have to prove his case step by step, proving quantities shipped.

Mr Roy said the onus of proving returns lay with tho masters of the ship. He called

John Snowball, secretary and wharfinger for the Mokau Harbour Board since March, 1901, who had endeavoured to obtain payment of dues from Mr Stubbs, of Waitara, whom ho recognised as the agent for the Collieries Co. Had only received on* return, but had obtained particulars from the harbourmaster at Waitara. The masters had not furnished returns, as they did not know how much coal they had aboard. The company had three vessels on the Mokau River, the scow Surprise, and steamers Mokau and M-angapapa. Had no returns from the Mangapapa, as she ran principally to Wanganui and New Plymouth. Mr Stubbs was agent for the vessels. Mr OgU was agent for the Manukau, but witness understood tho vessel was chartered by the company to carry coal. Had frequently written to Mr Stubbs on the matter, and on- one occasion, a compromise had been effected between Mr Stubbs and the Board for payment of £25, but this was not paid.

To Mr Quilliam ; Knew by report that the Manukau was chartered by the company to carry coal. Would be very much surprised to learn that the company had never exported an ounce of coal from Mokau. Did not know that Mr Quilliam held tlie power of attorney for the company. Had not sent in a claim for the dues to the Taranaki Collieries Company, but only to Mr Stubbs. There was no board outside the office bearing scale of charges, etc., but there was one in the wharf-shed. Mr Greonaway haul paid up his harbour improvement rates on timber shipped by him. Jamea Rattenbury, farmer at Tongaporutu, and a member of the Moknu Harbour Hoard from its in::e])tion, had always considered Mr Stubbs agent for the company, and the Board always looked on him in that capacity.

To Mr Quilliam : Just rccen'.ly Mr Stubbs told witness that he was running the mines himself. That was after he had failed to pay the dues as compromised between him, the Board, and the Minister for Murine. The Manukau may have been carrying coals either for the company or for Mr Kattenbury. His Honor said that the Board should have enforced its by-laws against the shipmasters. Mr Quilliam said the defence was a denial of the statement that the company owed any dues for coul. He called

George Herbert Stubbs, coal merchant at Waitara, who said Urn; he ha 1 been working the mines up to 190] entirely on his own account. Then made an agreement \v;th the Company, but that agreement had recently been superseded. Was still cariying on the mines. To Lis certain knowledge the company hail remo\ed no coal between the dates mentioned in the claim. If anyone was responsible for tile duos he (wi;ness) was. The Board had ;-tcognised the fact that the coal industry could not bear these harbour rates. Had not endeavoured to lca-i people to believe he was reprosentir g the company. Had never seen any board posted and bearing tho Mrkau Harbour Board's scale oV charges. To Mr Roy : Had always acted ns proprietor and never as agent for the company. Had financed and worked the mines himself. Admilted that if anyone was liable for the rate, he was. Hud always <!■.)!.' all in his power to object to the rate.

To His Honor : During the dates mentioned all the coal which c.ime away from the mines had beon his own, and the company had no mteiest in the coal except the royai'y agreed on.

His Honor non-suited the plaintiff, as it was quite -ilear that the company was not responsible. Mr Quillinm applied for Hie usual costs, and these were granted. The Court rose.