LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 799, 23 April 1910, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

FULL, COURT. iTHE HARBOUR FERRY BOATS; ~ BERTHAGE RATES. HARBOUR BOARD'S BY-LAWS. ■ Questions relating to the Wellington fiarbour Board's power to charge berthiage rates to harbour, ferry steamers for use of the suburban wharves were disfcussed before tho Full Court yesterday, frhe Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), p£r. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice (Cooper were on the, bench. , The cose arose out.of an originating , fenmmonsi The Wellington. Harbour Ferries, Ltj!.', applied foir a declaratory (order under the Declaratory Judgments Met to determine certain questions. Mr. fr. G. Dalziell appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr. 'T. S. Weston for the defendant board. It was stated: in the summons that ' the Harbour Board had erected certain Wharves in or adjacent to the city of Wellington, and called' "city wharves," and also'certain others at the suburbs tof Petone, Day's Bay, Rbna Bay, Seatoun, Karaka Bay, and Miramar. ffhese were described as "suburban svharves" in tho board's by-laws, which jalso enacted that a' berthage rate, a specific fee of 2s. and Is. for jeach call mado, should bo paid by ferry ttoats and launches respectively using teuch suburban wharves. "Ferry Boat" was defined*. as "any vessel licensed to carry ; *oro. : than 80 passengers to or from any place within the jEa'rbour of Wellington." "Launch" was defined as any vessel, not being a waterman's" boat, licensed to carry mot more than 80 passengers as above. {Vessels (other than ferry 'boats and Haunches) plying for hire either for goods and passengeVs within the harbour, and paying a license fee to the j>oard, paid no berthage rate at any jnharf. .Ferry boats and launches paid too berthago rates when, calling at city /wharves. Vessels other than' ,:those licensed as aforesaid had to pay '.a fcerthage rate at all wharves, calculated jJLa rate per ton on their net register" Tho by-laws provided that Inhere- any two suburban wharves are fcituated within half a mile of one aniother the said berthage rate paid at lone of these wharves hy a ferry boat leaving a city wharf and calling at both suburban wharves on the same trip shall dear, such ferry boat for the pther suburban wharf. ■ Tho board tharged to ferry boa.ts and launches plying within the harbour a license fee - pi £20 and £3 per annum respectively, which T&a more thin sufficient to cover registration a&d similar expenses, and Was imposed for revenue purposes, and feiempted the boats and launches from bayment of berthage charges for use of wharves other than suburban wharves. , Tho following were tho questions subImitted for the determination of the ICourt:— (1) Is the said'board entitled, for the purpose of raising harbour dues, ~" to distinguish between suburban wharves, and other wharves, within tie harbour, and if . bo entitled, is rb empowered to make a special berthage rate for' ferry boats calling at suburban wharves which is not payable by any other boats or vessels using the same wharves,'or by ferry boats or vessels calling at wnarves other than.', suburban wharves in the. harbourf (2) Is the'said board empowered '■ to distinguish, for the purpose of berthage charges-or similar harbour . dues , , between ■ferry'/. boats plying within the harbour and ferry boats plying between the ports of Lyttolton and Wellington, or other pas-senger-boats coming to the port of iWellington from other ports ? (3) Is tie said board empowered, , in levying berthage rates, to make \ a. special concession in favour of a ferry boat starting from any particular wharf situated within! the , harbour, or must it charge all ferry ioats plying within tho harbour alike for tho use hi any specified

/;/ wharf?, -■■ "', •;•■ ". ■'■- ■>-■:.-■■■ /' 'Iβ-the/said--board empowered . ■: -■':,' -s to charge a license fee. .to : ferry ••■■ . • boate plying within the ■ harbour, ■;■•"■': and paying'no berthage. rates at the . ciiy wharves, and,-'if so,-, is it en- .-; abled,'at the same time, to charge v;- : such ferry boats a berthage rate for :'}.- ; -their use of suburban, or other ■ ■ ...wharsee?' - ... r .. . .'■ . , ; ' .' / i -Mr. Dalziell said that the object of (the case was.to ascertain the power of ; tthe Harbour Board.to tax ferry boats '■'.'■ carrying on business after the manner ;. jof-the ferries running on. Wellington . [Harbour. 'Apart,fronvthe.city wharves, ..She Harbour Board had erected wharves ;'■ .tati.Petaney Day's Bay, Rona Bay, SeaV jtoun, Karaka Bay and /; (in - the =sby-laws', "suburban" ;,wharves. : 'ohese : . suburban wharves; had .cost -the ':':'■■' ifaoard- a/large,'sum"of' " was the .board's, desire ,to get revenue '' •' that would -pay some 'return/uponothe ■-:■:'. wharves. of ..;;., rebates, to' compel the ferry.''.boats', to .' (all at particular :wharves. .-,• -. - : '--' Mr. Westo'n:; Of course, I can't ad- . jnit that.. ...J:;;.. , . ..,. . ■.'■'■■...'' ■' -,■ ■ ■ Mr. Dalziell: ■is a ■ fair mterpre- : ' tation of what: they have done. ;';-.:•>' i;. : : .:'- --The/ Chief 'Justice: If they./call .'at/ a':. ;; : '■'.''■ certain' numbar of wharres ".they,'"gixe', ! ..them concessions. ■'.'. . - 1 ;/''.'''!, ■'! ■ 1 . vMr. Dalziell said that the byJaws.of' '.'/ rthe-Harbour Board had apparently.been' ;.. / ■framed , for the purpose of .getting fr6m : /. tthe>Ferry Company" : what.;Tvas-' deemed. ". ito be an.adequate return'upon"the .cost' ; ; «i the ferry wharves.-; '■■'■■■\' -... ..:.;'■': . ; Mr. Justice Edwards: Why shouldn't: they? These wharves have been erected i: solely, for.the. purpose of. this trade.;; ?■ ~;'.-.": Mr. Dalziell: "What ;.we , say is.this/ : ■ .*fWe did not ask'for these'wharves."' ■ ; ./Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, you needn't go to them."..' ; Mr. Dalziell: That ie what we want '•: io do. If the ferry boat 'calls J' at two r -wharves lrithin half. a. mile .of" each 1 .other, .the board :, charges : only.for j: Jberthing at. one wharf,, .but, if the i 'business of the ferry ie only to call at 1.".' , eno wharf,' then it-js penalised. {'. .Mr.. Justice Cooper said that it was f / lieNa man passing' through toll-gates; ! naving paid at, the first, he was ex- | ■". empted at the others. .•', '.■ ■ h.''.'- Mr. Justice Edwarrs lemarked thai 'a passenger, who, proceeding to Island i ißay by car, purchased a concession tic- [■-■ ket,/travelled'"for.3d, whereas■ another \ person- who paid his fare as he.went i along was charged 4d. Where was the ''''-- nana? . Mr. Dalziell: There is no harm at C all- That is quite general. There are : many such concessions; but in. this '<'■■'■■ case the point is not as to the voyage, ■'■■■ -/tut as ; to the use of the.wharf. What ' ; the company is that the board '. ■ should fix "its charges in a general ■ Tvay. It ought ..to make a definite ;. 'charge for calling at every wharf. • '■■ Mr. Justice Cooper : said that the ' \echeme.of rebates provided that 'the ifcrry boats should have.the privilege ef using all the wharves within a par- . *icular area and pa yonly one fee. ■".. ; . "■'■' Mr. Weston: That is : what we say. ' Mr. Dalziell went on to argue that a Voyage to Itona Bay was not tho same ■" as a voyage to Rona Bay and Day's Baj. •••.■■■■

Mr. Jnsticc Edwards: Yon board a car and travel a hundred yards: jou ipay the same fare as if you travelled ever, the whole section. Mr. Justice Cooper pointed out that a steamer called at Picton on its way ■to Nelson, hut the voyage was to Nelieon, ' ;■ .• '

The Chief Justicß remarked that'a steamer shifting from the Taranaki Street 'Wharf to the King's Wharf—a distanco of over half a mile—would not be'charged any extra wharfage. Mr. Dalziell urged that tho boat, in such a case, had only shifted to another part of tho same wharf. He contended that, for the purposes, of the statute, trips mado from the Queen's Wharf to llona Bay and from Taranaki Street Wharf to Rona Bay were two different voyages. Mr. Justice Cooper asked what would bb the position of a man who went into it'shilling restaurant and asked ifor nothing more than a bowl of soup, tendering 2d. ... ■ The:' Chief Justice followed up the question with the remark that a teetotaller, seeing another customer being served with a glass of beer with his meal, might havo a grievance, and consider tnat he should be charged only yd. (Laughter.) Mr. Dalziell: The Legislature might say that all customers should be treated alike.

Mr. Justice Cooper:-Then a man to havo '!ii meal au provided b> the statute," must go through the whole menu? . (Laughter.) .•■- . Mr.' Justice' Edwards said that as the Ferry Company's boats were the only users of the wharves, the board might oblige by charging 2s. -for each ■wharf..' . ' X Mr. Dalziell:. That. would _ suit us admirably, but thoy won't do it. Mr. Dalziell contended that for the Surppses of harbour dues there was no ifference between harbour ferries and "ferry" steamers such as the. Maori. Mr. Justice Cooper pointed out a distinction in that the master of a harbour ferry could not command the Maori.

The Chief Justice mentioned another difference." "On the 'Maori you can only smoke.sin certain parts," said his Honopr, "but,on,these little ferries people smoke anywhere, and non-smok-, ers have to endure , the tobacco smoke." (Laughter.)' '"" ' ""-"'■' r '"■ Mr. Weston said that "the'board was quite willing to put all ferry boats on the same footing,-and to waive the extra, charge ,made when a ferry commonced its voyage l at. Petono. Although previously the business had been amicably ; carried, on, during .the past years the Ferry Company had disputed tho powers of tho.'..board, and it had been decided to put'the case before the Court.".: ' ■■"'--'■■ ■"■"-■■•-. .-.Mr. Weston argued, ..that the ..board had" v a perfect ■•■right'/to* discriminate between different classes of- shipping, but not between-different,ships, of the. same class. ■■'. - ■■ :.; ■■■:■;'■■ ■■■■' .'■'■'"'■ - '

Mr.-Justice Cooler suggested that there .was discrimination in the provision which allowed a concession to ferry boats starting from a city wharf and not^to 5 boats starting from a< suburban wharf. ... ' •. ':

Mr.-Weston said it was open to any boat to start from a-city wharf, and it was undesirable' to have boats lying too long at tho small enburban wharves. Tho'board had a perfect right to group the wharves for the purposes of its charges. ..'.'■. , The Court reserved its decision.