HYNDMAN JONES, J.

The motion must be refused. The facts are shown by the Official Assignee's affidavit (His Lordship here enumerated them as set out above). The action of the Official Assignee was commented on as being unnecessary because he only sold the licenses and it was no concern of his to see that the purchaser got possession of any particular position. I cannot agree. I think the Official Assignee was quite right to bring the matter to the notice of the Defendant, and if the Defendant feels there had been an encroachment it was his duty to see that the purchaser was fairly dealt with, and under the circumstances disclosed in the case so far I think his action was commendable if he was acting within his powers. It was contended that the Plaintiff had removed the stakes without authority for the purpose of cleaning them and that this constituted a breach of rule 4, and that inasmuch as the Rules must be read into s. 37 of the Ordinance the Defendant had power under that section to remove the stakes. I don't attach much importance to this point as the Defendant did not purport at act under that rule and in view of the other ground I say no more on this point.

The Plaintiff's position is that of a licensee, and although it is true he paid a small fee for the licence this makes no difference. The license does not on the face of it fix any definite period for the duration of the license such as those for tongkangs and junks, and in my opinion amounts to nothing more than a bare license. If the fish belonged to the Government and the license had been granted to fish and take the fish belonging to the Government it might then have been a license coupled with a grant and different considerations might have arisen, but the Harbours Ordinance, creates no rights in the fish which are publici juris and the license itself is not to fish but merely to place stakes in the sea bed, the soil to the Crown. On the authority of Wood v. Leadbitter (ubi supra) such a license is revocable, and such being the case, and it being for the plaintiff to show he has a right to complain he is not in a position to demand an injunction. It may be that there is a contractual relation as in Kerrison and Smith (ubi supra) but on this I given no opinion, and even if there were it would not entitled the Plaintiff to an injunction.

There is another ground on which the application fails even assuming that an action for injunction would lie, and that is that the Plaintiff's damage could be easily assessed and any injury adequately remedied by damages.