PORT CHARGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8308, 20 December 1912, Page 11

PORT CHARGES

CLAIMS AGAINST NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY. Dr McArthur’s judgment was delivered at the Magistrate's court _ yesterday in the case in winch a claim lor 7s lou port charges, was made by the Wellington iiari>ur Hoard ugainsc the New Zealand Shipping Company- The vessels on which the money was alleged to be due were the Paparoa and the Kaikourain respect to the Paparoa. -777x7 tons, ±ll Is dd w-as claimed, being at the rate of twopence per ton, and on the Kaikoura., 1,77 tons, the sum sued for was ,£37 6s 2d, at the rate of twopence per ton. „ At the hearing, Mr T. S. Weston, who appeared tor the Harbor Hoard, stated that it was the custom of the New Zealand Shipping Company, when loading meat at ivaicara. to lake its stevedores up by boat from Wellington, and afterwards to bring them- bach in the vessel. In order to avoid paying port charges the company charters a tng which goes outside tne heads, and Lino men are transhipped from the steamer into it. The Kaikoura had been to Waitara, and on her return a tug went out to take of! the stevedores. However, too rough a sea was running to permit of this being done in the strait, so the vessel came into port and put the men on the tug off Worser Bay. The board claimed that she was liable for charges. The Paparoa had come from the south to embark stevedores for Waitara, but instead of waiting at the heads for the tng to go out with the men, she came into port to load bunker coal. She embarked the 'stevedores in the stream after coaling. When vessels came to Wellington to get bunker coal they were exempted from charges, but clause 17 of the by-laws provided that they must come for bunker coal only in order to bo exempt. The board claimed dues in respect of the Paparoa because she came not only to bunker, but to get stevedores as well. Mr M. Myers, for the defendant company, said be could not understand why the board claimed in respect of the Kaikoura, because vessels which came into port to shelter were not made to pay chargee. The Kaikoura could not tran ship the stevedores outside the heads owing to the rough sea. Tho Paparoa came into port only for the purpose of receiving bunker coal. So long as a vessel arrived in port for the purpose of receiving bunker coal she might do something else ancillary, or even not ancillary, to the object of taking m coal. “In my opinion," said bia Worship, “the s.s. Paparoa is exempt, as she called into port solely for the purpose of receiving bunker coal, and did not ‘receive or discharge any cargo within the port/ The fact that she took on board stevedores while in port, does not, 1 consider, infringe the by-law, which reads; 'Vessels arriving in the port for the purpose of receiving only bunker coal . . . which do not receive or discharge any cargo within the port, shall be exempt from port charges.' It is admitted that she took on stevedores within the port, but this cannot, as I think, make her liable to port charges. That which would _ make her _ liable would be the reception on tho discharge of cargo. The s.s. Kaikoura is, 1 consider, on. a different footing. She come into port for the purpose wholly outside the provisions of the by-law and the statute. She was not in distress, but by reason of her desire to land stevedores she found it convenient to make use of the port. Ido not consider that she comes under the exemptions mentioned in by-law 17, or under section 117 of the statute. In my opinion the • s-s. Paparoa is exempt from port charges, but the s.s. Kaikoura is liable." _ Judgment was given for plaintiffs for ,£37 6s 2d, with the usual costs.