SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1898, 5 November 1913, Page 17

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON RIDDLE SOLVED. HOW TO LEVY RATES. A question of which of three methods of levying rates should bo used by a new Hirer Board was answered yesterday by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in a case heard last week between tho Palmerston North Kairanga lliver Board v. tho Mayor, Councillors and Burgesses of Palmerston North, tlio Kairanga County Council, and the Jlanawatu Golf Club. Questions to be Decided. The plaintiff River Board was constitutea under the River Boards Act by a proclamation, dated April 17 last. I'lie system of rating on tho unimprov-1 ed value was in voguo both in tlio Kairanga County and in ths borough. Thero wore several properties in tho district of the plaintiif board, parts of which wore near tho Manawatu River, and liable to damage by floods and part on high land inununo from floods. The following questions were submitted to tho Court:— On what system must the plaintiff board levy rates in the district ? If not on tho system of rating on tho unimproved value, can tho plaintiff board adopt such system in manner provided by tho Eating Act, 1908 ? Dan assessors appointed under Section 94 of tlio lliver Boards' Act, 1908, to classify the lands in the River District, divide any of the separate properties as shown on the assessment rolls supplied by tlio Valuer-General - pursuant to Section 83 of the River Boards Act, 1908, or must each separate property bo classified as a whole? Does tho constitution of the Rivor Board aifect the validity of rights to remove gravel and shingle granted for a period of years |>y the owners of lands on the hanks of tho river prior to the creation the River District? lu partitui lar —' ,

(a) Can tho River Board detormino such rights? (b) If_ so, can tho' board itself , grant- rights to remove grave] from the bed of the river i (c) Has tlio board power to consent to tho continuance of existing rights? (d) If so, under what condi-' tions should tho board properly grant such consent-P The Judgmont. His Honour, in answering these questions, said tliero wore three methods of levying rates, as follows: —(1) On tho capital value—that is, 011 the value of the land with all improvements. (2) 011 the annual value, and (3) On the unimproved value. Section 83 of tho Act provided that-; (1) 111 .districts where rates are to bo lovied on lands according to tlic-ir classification tho board from timo .to time, aa.it thinks fit, may classify or causa to bo classified all lands in the district, both town lands and country lands, into tho following two or three classes, at the discretion of tlio board, tlm; is to say: —(a) Lands liable to great actual damage ; (b) lands liable to less actual damage; (c) lands indirectly liable to damage. ' (2) Tho rates shall bo levied upon tlio several classes of land aforesaid in such proportions as tho board in each case appoint®. His Honour quoted several sections in answer to tho arguments advanced bv counsel,, and answered tlio four questions as follows :—r (1) Bv rates 011 tho 'capital value. (2) No. (3) Any separate property may bo classified, part under (a), part ■ under (b), and part under (c), in Section 93 of the River Boards Act. (a) Tno board, if it' considers it necessary for tho works, may prevent the removal of gravel ant*, shingle, and should do so if, in its • opinion, the removal of "the shingle or the method of its removal would bo injurious to tho courso which the board desires tho river to take, or to any ixissiblo future opera- ' tions of the hoard. (h) No. Tho board can remove from tho bed of tho rivor any 6hin~ gle or gravel necessary for ' the purpose of straightening or controlling or improving tho- courso • of tho river, or for the purpose of constructing protective works; but the shingle and gravel may not bo Bold to outsiders unless t'ho removal i of it is necessary in which case it may be sold or disposed of as tho board thinks fit. (c) Yes. (d) Tho board l could properly grant such consent- if tho continu- | ance of such rights did not interfere with its works. ■ Judgment was entered accordingly, each party to pay its own costs. At the hearing, Mr. H. R. Cc<,per represented t'ho plaintiff board, Mr. F. H. Cooko appeared for tho Palmers ton North Corporation, and tho Manawatu Golf Club, and tho Kairanga County Council was not represented.

LAND EXCHANCE. A QUESTION,OP MORTGAGE. Judgment was given yesterday by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in a case in which Frederick "Win. Henry Luers, farmer, Baincsse, sued Thomas Alfred Hackett, farmer, Ashhurst, for specific- performance or damages for breach of contract. His Honour, in opening, remarked: "Tho contract is one of thoso land exchango contracts very common in this district and often very calamitous to those who engage in them." Tho oxchange was a farm of plaintiff's for a farm of defendant's, tho latter to givo his land free of mortgago and the plaintiif to receive £1700 from him in addition to tho property, tho land being mortgaged t-o tho National Mutual Life Association of Australasia, Ltd. Tho agreement aud tho performance was conditional upon 1 tho vendor (plaintiff) arranging with the National Mutual Life Association to take a £1700 mortgago from tlio defendant, and failing that arrangement tlio agreement could bo cancelled. Plaintiff was 1111abie to got such assent though the association agreed to t-ako a- mortgago for £1800. Plaintiff sued 011 tho varied contract, but judgment would bo for tho defendant 011 tlio claim, with costs. As to tho counter-claim, added His Honour, 110 evidence was given at tho trial of tlio damage suffered by tho defnedant and judgment was therefore given for tho plaijitiff in tlio action, with £3 3s. costs.

At the hearing Mr. M. Myers and Mr. Elliott appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. C. Skorrett, K.C., and Mr. Uaiilcino represented defendant.

SALE OF HOTEL. l a AI!T HUYKR &. COMMISSION. That- a parl-piU'chasei" should not receive commission 011 the sale from tlio vendor was the cllVct of the judgment given yesterday by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in tho appeal of Arthur Henry Rogers, hotolkeepvr, formerly of l'ulmerston North, now of Auckland, the respondent, beinc; Abraham and Williams, Ltd., auctioneers, Palmerston North, i'lui ajijieal >v»it «u a point of law from, the decision, of. Mr. J,

Poynton, Stipendiary Magistrate, Palmcrston North. Tlio respondent company sued appellant for £50 agreed commission for tho salo of the license and furniture of the Royal Hotel, l'aluierston North. The hotel was tho property of Messrs. Waldegiave Uros., and tho respondent company neted aa their agents on tho sale of it to Messrs. Kciller, Loughnnu and Abraham, the lastnamed being tlie managing director of tho respondent company. Appellant agreed to sell his interest in tho lease, license, and furniture for £4000. . Tho Magistrate found that a. special contract was made, that appellant knew that Mr. Abraham was one of tho syndicate, that the syndicate was a likely purchaser,

and that respondent was tho agent of the syndicate. No salo was then effected and the option and agency was at an. end. Correspondence followed, however, and respondent offered £4000 to appellant, a salo being effected at £4200, but there was no agreement about agency or commission. His Honour added that ho failed to find any evidence of any work or labour dono b.y respondent on behalf of appellant, and that tho struggle of tho respondent company waa not to sell the property of tho appellant at the best prioo obtainable, but to got the appellant to sell Mb property to tho respondent's clients at the lo\vest price possible. The appeal was therefore allowed, with £7 7b. costs, and tho Magistrate was directed to enter judgment for appellant (defendant below) with such costs aa ho considered proper.

At the hearing, Mr.' H. It. Cooper represented the appellant, and Mr. P. E. Baldwin appeared for tho respondent.