LIABLE FOR PORT DUES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 33, 9 February 1927, Page 12

LIABLE FOR PORT DUES

THE AWARUA'S BUSINESS

That the steamer Awarua does not merely engage in fishing, but carries freight as wejl r and is therefore liable for harbour dues, was the text of the judgment given by Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M., in the ■ Magistrate's Court yesterday in the case in which the Wellington Harbour Board proceeded against B. G. F. Zohrab and Fisheries, Ltd., for dues levied in respect to the vessel. At the hearing of the case,' Mr. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. White for the defendants.

"The statement of claim," said the Magistrate, "alleges that the amount claimed is for dues levied in respect of the vessel, but the owners refuse to pay such dues, as they say that they are exempt, because the ship is a fishing vessel. The exemption claimed is under section 78 (1) (c) of the Harbours Act, 1923, which says:—'Nothing- in this Act shall charge with any dues any vessel employed in fishing, sealing, or oyster dredging, and not conveying goods for hire.' The onus lies on the defendants to show that the vessel is a fishing vessel and does not carry goods for hire. Certainly the ship is registered as a fishing vessel, but this does not conclude the matter. The Awarua does go down and fishes at the Chathams, stays there a time,' and then returns to Wellington with fish and also othei; goods. The fact that she carries such other goods affects the position. If the Awarua limited herself, merely carrying goods to the Chathams for the actual fishermen employed by the owners in the fishing industry, I am inclined to think the result might be affected, and that she might be able to support a claim to exemption. However, she carries goods for the local storekeeper at the Chathams. The evidence shows that the storekeeper at the Islands runs a store on his own, and arranges for stores to be brought down to him, and for some articles to be taken back to Wellington by the Awarua. On each of five trips in this case stores came up or down by her. The defendants, at the request of the storekeeper, purchase his stores in Wellington, and convey them to jthe Chathams by the vessel. They charge the storekeeper 10s pe:r cent, on the.purchase price, and call this a buying commission. It is sought to show that this is not in the nature of freight, but I am unable to agee with this contention, and must hold that the defendants have not discharged the onus of proving that they do not carry goods forliire." Judgment was given for the plaintiff board for £10 3s 9d, with costs £4 lGs. . ' ■' ■' . ■ .