SALE OF LAND FOR RATES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 2152, 19 June 1889, Page 3

SALE OF LAND FOR RATES.

(PKB FBBSB ASSOCIATION.) Wmunotow, June 17 Argument was heard by the Chief Juitice to-day m tbe case of Nash v the Rangitlkei Oounty Oounoll. This Was an action of some importance. Plaintiff waa George Nash, a resident of Wellington, and at the fitting of the Supreme Oourt In Wangaoul In October be sought to recover damages and other relief from tbe defendant body on acoount of the sale of a block of land sold by tha latter m order to obtain payment of rates. The jury found for him, but the esse was reserved for further Consideration. It osme on for argument this morning, Mr Jelllooe appearing for the plaintiff and Mr Brown for defendant. The statement of claim set forth that on the sth April, 1884, the plaintiff was owner m fee simple of sixty -three acres of land, bilog part of Block 264, Rangitlkei dUtrlct ; that on »h<» date above mentioned the Ringltlkel County Oounoll, eialm'ng tb aot culer the provisions of the Rating Act, 1876, sold land to Arthur Smith, of Marton, B->itolcor, m order to recover payment of rstes doe, amounting to £3 Oj Id; that on the 3rd May, 1884, tha Council j duly executed a memorial of sale onder, the provliions of the Rating Aot, 1876, and , tbe said memorial was duly registered.! Tbat the Oouoell did not give tbe notice required by seotlon 61 of tbe said statute, m cooiequence of which tha sale was irre- j gulir ; tbat the Ounnoll had not heretofore accounted to the Pubilo Truitee, to plaintiff, or to any person lawfully authorised, for the proceeds of tire sale, and plaintiff had been uoabiaVto discover any Information on the sabj iot ; that part of tbe land wu of sufficient value to have satisfied the elejn and the whole of the land ought not to have been sold ; tbat the Council did not obtain tbe best price foi the land tbat tbey oould have obtained, wherefore plaintiff lost a considerable som of money. Plaintiff prayed judgment for £200 damages, and that the Connell might be ordered to pay blm the prooeeda of the sale after deducting the rates and charges. The Couooil admitted that theland io question was sold m order to pay rain, bnt pleaded that tbey were not able to say whether Elsintiff was or was not owner of the said tnd at the time lt was sold. They alleged thtt the sale was peifeotly regular, tbat until called upon to do so they were not required to account for the proceeds of the ■ale, and that owing to the broken character of the land and tbe absence of roads it was impotable to have sold a portion of it. Ihe Council filed a statement of accounts, showing that the land was sold for £47 6s, and tbat after deducting rates and charges (including £1S for costs of a solicitor), there waa a sum Of £25 Is lid due to plaintiff. His Honor reserved his decision.