SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1934, 17 December 1913, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

;?:.'Sp5 ; ftidingsof/tho ./ •) have. ciljjt'-'ftocVto a-ralo;st'riick! ! b.vthe County Conned,-., ami.i.an^actioii'f arising sout;of this oijjectinn Was'.he'ani'liii tli'i\ Supvcmo ..ConrLA- yesterdayjC/hoforo- SII is -J H<in'our' i Stout), l'la in tiffs, in t.!ic,.a(;.tw!i,;wcro:-rWil!iani Augustus Warren/: farmer,'- of'.Koiiini; Milton" Alpas.y_ fanner.'/of/Konim; 'jinii , l^ri<'ll ) "farmoi•y : of. , 'Alt.aro'rMopayora.in'the'-KbnlriniHHng of tho County of'Pahiaina.vThe''dofendiiiit 1 was the. I'nhiatua County -..Council. ■;■'■'Sir. T. p\ Martin ..appeared, fortlio plainiiil's, while Mr?-;C. '■■ P."Sliorrott'..' K,C, with Mr. Harolcl.'Smilli, of Pahiatua, appeared for- tho County Council.' Hating on the unimproved value is tlii!'. system obtaining-in tho Pahiatua County, and on Julyo-last the rate for tho current yearwas struck. According to the stateiiient'of claim a.into of IJdV in the £ had soph-'struck (payable- oil September 1, 1013),. ami tho plaintiffs (Warren, Alpass/.'aml'-O'Urion), who sued on behalf of /themselves and » umubw of other'''ratepayers, ■ claimed j that this was grossly in.excess of the requirements of tho KoniiM. Hiding. In support of this it was sot out that- on March 31 last them was'a balance of £108 os. 3d, to tho credit.of tho riding, and that the engineer's estimate of tho year's work in tho riding was'£o4l V2s. (id. As a rate of one.penny in the £ on the. rateable.value. (£155,"285) would yield £047 os. 3d., it/was contended that this amount added., to the credit balance, .would jm. ample to meet tho requirements of the riding as.well as it;i proportion of the general-expenses i of the comity. ' The-"plaintiffs said that they had reason-.-to believe, tliat the object of tho majority, of the council ill imposing llKvaddhVioiKil' rate of Jd..iit tho £ on tho riding . was .to create a larao credit balance for such .riding at the'end of tho financial year, and thence to alter tho ridings of the county in such a w.7V that the , credit balance should be in part available for an .area of the couiitv not now included in tho Knnini Hiding. .For this reason plain* tiffs asked-for an. injunction restraining the council from' striking tho rate, or (in tho alternative) an injunction restraining tho council'-from collecting (my more of tho rate :: iiian was actually required. 'v- *■<'■•'■■ ■'. ' ' ,"", ; . The defence was a ' ncmal that the rate struck was in'excess of rcquiroirents. The defendant ' council saiu that the credit balance of the Koivmi Hiding on March 31 last was only Lldb 17s, lid., whiles tho engineer's estimate- • for works was said to be £'fwl 12s. 6d., > a mini which . included only urgent I ivoi-ks. There had -since been an-cslr-i mate for further works amounting to • £400'163. Bd., while- tho ridings, share ! of general expenses was £280 is. 4d., ' and the rate was struck to cover 'die " total expenditure .in tho ruling of £1422 '• Uis. (Si. In actual fact tho credit , balance, £436 17s. lid.,' when added to 1 tho sum (£O7O 10s. 7<L) yicld«t bj r rates (IUI. in the £ on £l;io,2So), s would only total £1407.85. Gd. 1-ilrtljv-ir.oro the actual expenditure- for tho first h"IS-vcar "V- account of the Komurhulhi" was £752 14s. od., and as it wouM be" necessary to ■ spend a similar sure > duriii" ■the " second' half-year, • -there would hi a debit balance to tne account of tho riding at the end of the year.;. Atlidavits were filed in support ot tiK r "statement of claim and defence 'anc , evidence was al&o' given in person. ' After hearing addresses by counsel. Hi's Honour reserved decision. .