LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1790, 1 July 1913, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

» COURT OP APPEAL. SPECIAL RATE ON LIGHTING. NOT RECOVERABLE. FINDING IN TROCADERO CASE. The Court of Appeal sittings commenced yesterday. /When the list had been oalled tho Court proceeded to hear an appeal by the Wellington City Council against a decision of Mr. Justice Chapman's on a 'point of municipal law. On the bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Sir. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Sim. Th* action was originally brought in the Magistrate's Court, but on account of the nature of the questions involved, it was removed into the Supremo Court, where it was aigued in February. The plaintiffs were the Mayor, Councillors, and Citizens of Wellington. The defendants were Hamilton Gilmer, M.L.C., of 186 The Terrace, Wellington; Allen Maguire, 6ettlsT, of Duiferin Street, Wellington; John O'Kane, clerk, of Wellington; Charles Perrin Skerreth K.C., of Wellington; and Mary Ann M'Ardle, settler, of Wellington. In the original statement of claim it was sfet out that the defendants (Hamilton Gilmer and others) are tho owners of go Trocadero Private Hotel, in Well in fjn, on which the sum of .£3O 13s. 10a. vras due for electrioity supplied for ligliting, heat, and power. Pursuant to the provisions of the Rating Act, 1908, the City Council, on June 1, 1912, made demands for this amount, which it was alleged, was recoverable as a separate rate. The demands were not complied with, and tho council therefore sought judgment for the sum mentioned. The facts were 'common ground, but >the right of the City Council to recover tho amount as a separate rate was disputed. On April 23, his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman gave judgment far the defendants with costs on the lowest scale, and it was from this decision that the City Council now appealed on the pound that it was erroneous in point of law. The main question for decision was; Ifl a municipal corporation, which owns or controls a gas or electric Light supply, entitled to recover (under the Rating Act) from a landlord, as a separate rate, the price of the gas or electrical onergy oonsumcd by 'his tenant for light, heat, o<r power? The Csty Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) appeared yesterday for the City Council, while Sir John Findkiy, K.C., with him Mr. T. C. A. Hislop, appeared for the respondents (Hamilton Gilmer and others). After hearing argument, the Court delivered oral judgment. The Chief Justice said that it had been sought to bring the case within Section 05 of the Rating Act, but before that could be done it had to bo shown what was the rateable property in respect of which the rate was recoverable. Here .there was no rateable property. His Honour was _ therefore of opinion that the judgment in tho Court below must be affirmed. _ Mr. Justico'Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Mr. Justice Sim all agreed with /the view taken by the Chief Justice, •and tho appeal was therefore dismissed, with costs on the lowest scale. FIXTURES MADE. Fixtures made by tho Court of Appeal yesterday included tho following:— Tuesday, July I.—-D. Ross v. J. J. Cassells (before Full Bench of Supreme Court). Wednesday, July 2.—Arthur Howard Playle v. Kiverdale Co-operative Dairy Factory Company, Ltd. _ Thursday, July 3.—Gavin. Brighton v. Gordon H. M'Clure. Friday; July 4.—Geo. Fredk. Newsome and another v. J. D. Brechin and others. Monday, July 7.—Donald M'Gregor v. Donald Iraser. Other cases oft the list for which fixtures have not bran made arolgnatius Hamilton Loughnan y. the Palmerston North Borough Council; H.M. the King i v. Samuel Francis Aitken; H.M. the King v, Sarah Elizabeth Skellon; and H.M. the King v. Harry Ford. ' On the application or Mi. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., leave was granted to set down a. oasi upon tho construction of tho will of ThomAS Bolch'jT, deceased.