BUNKER COAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 62, 15 March 1927, Page 11

BUNKER COAL

QUESTION OF WHARFEACE

FULL COUET DECISION 7

Judgment in a case of importance to fishing companies and harbour boards wai delivered by his Honour tho Chief Justice, Sir Charles Skcrrctt, yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Alpers concurred. The points involved related to the levying of, certain wharfage due« o ; i fishing vessels.

The. plaintiff was the Napier Harbour Board, and the defendant was tho New Zealand Trawling and l«'isu Supply Company, Limited. ' _"Ihe circumstances are these," said his Honour: "The defendant company is the owner: of a trawler employed in fishing antTnot conveying goods for hire.' The trawler is a steam vessel requiring coal for propulsion, and usually berths at the boards wharf. Bunker coal for trawlers is in practice brought in vehicles on to the hoard's wharf and then loaded on board the vessel. The coal when brought on to the wharf is the property of the defendant company, and we are asked to assume that the coal in the case with which we are concerned was in fact intendeds as bunker coal for the .use o£ the" particular nshmg trawler mentioned in the special case. It ig in respect of a charge of wharfage for the use of the board's wharf .in respect of this bunker coal that the action was brought by the board. The question we are asked to decide is the abstract one, whether the Napier Harbour Board has a right to levy a wharfage due in respect of bunker coal brought on to the board's wharf and placed from there on-to the trawlers of the defendant company's fleet. ... We are of opinion that the Napier Harbour Board has a right by appropriate bylaw to levy wharfage rates on bunker coal loaded from the board's wharf into or for the use of any of the defendant company's trawlers; and we answer the question accordingly. "The second question which we have been asked to decide is whether under the existing bylaws of the plaintiff board it can impose a wharfage due or charge on bunker coal placed on trawlers from its wharves. We are of opinion that the bylaw was designed only to impose rates in respect of goods landed on any wharf or shipped from any wharf. It imposes a wharfage rate m respect of the use of the wharf for landing goods thereon from any vessel using the port or for shipping any goods therefrom for carriage by ships. .Ihe bunker coa.l was not coal landed on the wharf, nor was it coal shipped from the wharf in the sense in which, it is clear that that term is used in the bylaw. The result, therefore, is that we do not think that the dues claimed in the present action can be recovered. In dealing with the nrst question we have expressed our opinion that by appropriate bylaws the board might impose wharfage rates in respect of bunker coal passing over the wharf even though such coal be intended for use on a vessel engaged in fishing and not carrying goods." At the hearing, the Hon. T. S. Weston, with him Mr. J. P. B. Stevenson, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. R. Kennedy for the defendant.