WILL CHAOS RESULT?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1083, 23 March 1911, Page 2

WILL CHAOS RESULT?

CITY AND KARORI. the financial adjustment, An application for a declaratory judgment determining certain questions arising out of a commissioner's report as to the financial adjustment between the City Council and tho Borough of Karon (in respect of the inclusion of a portion of the borough within the city boundaries) was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert btout). The questions asked of the Court were:— (1) Whether the plaintiffs arc entitled to a share of the general surplus of ',S ovor liabilities amounting to A'lL'iO 15s. 3d. (2) Whethor plaintiffs are entitled to any part of the 5i acres of land purchased by defendants at South Karori for a lecreation ground or other purposes. (3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any r i ',' le rtst; the rea ' property l ol defendants other than the tramway, and, if so, to what extent? If plaintiffs are not so entitled, whether other person or body is entitled? (4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any interest in the tramway belonging to defendants. (5) Whether the special rates under special loans, now payable in rospect'of the whole of the original Borough of Karori, can be collected by the Knrori Borough Council, or whether tli.e;; must bo collected in part by the Karori Council, and in part by the City Council. (0) Whether the annual amount, due for interest and sinking fund ill respect; 9f each such special loan, is primarily payable by Ihe Karori Borough or the City Council, or whether the liability must be apportioned between them. ■ Sir. O'Sliea, City Solicitor, appeared for the City Council, and Mr. T. W. Hislop for tho Karori Borough. After argument at considerable length his Honour said that he was of opinion that he had no power to express any opinion under the Declaratory .Judgments Act, such as was asked for iii this originating summons. Portion of the Karori Borough had been added to tho City, and the parties did not agreo on the adjustment of property and liabilities. When this happened there was provision in the statute as to what should be done. Tho statute prescribed that it should be lawful for the Governor to make an adjustment, and to this end a commissioner was appointed. On his decision the Governor could make an order or warrant of adjustment. The commissioner had collected evidence, and made .his report. but it had not, so' far, been approved by the Governor. What was asked now was that the Court should intervene and direct the commissioner as to what ho should have done. His Honour said he kriew of no power to enable him to do this. What the commissioner should have clone was nil in plain print, and the Court was not aware of any authority which would enable it to intervene.- If the' city was aggrieved it had its remedy which was to apply to the Government. He (his Honour) was therefore of opinion that he had no power to deal with the originating summons. He would say that tho Court had no jurisdiction to answer the question put to it. . The summons would be dismissed with costs X 5 ss.