COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2822, 13 July 1916, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL

WADESTOWN TRAMWAY \RATING CASE.' ' All day yesterday the Appeal Court was ocoupied with' tho hearing of argiir nient of counsel in the Wadestowii tramway rating case on appeal. Their Honours tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Denniston, and Sir. Justice Stringer were the presiding Judges; Tho question on appeal was that the City Corporation has power to levy a special rate over the Wadestown tram area to. meet any deficiency that might arise out of running that. tramwaj; ex-' 1 tension. The contention of the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.), was that tho City Corporation could not differentiate against AVadestown, because the Wadestown extension was a part of the whole tramway system of the city. Mr. T. Young concluded his argument yesterday morning along similar lines, and urged that it would be unfair to levy any rate upon tho Wadestown tramway rating area for .any slight deficiency that mi«ht accruo upon the running of the Wadestown extension because the Wadestown ratepayers contributed to,the upkeep of the whole system, by patronising the city tramways. Mr. J. O'Shea, the City Solicitor, contended that tho City Corporation would not hnvo undertaken the construction of tho Wadestown extension unless the ratepayers of Wadestown had agreed to raise a loan for the construction of that tramway, and by the terms of that loan the ratepayers agreed to allow their property to be rated for any deficiency that might arise from the running of the tramway to Wadestown. . As there had been a loss on the Wadestown extension, lie held thfit tho City Corporation was. entitled to levy upon the ratepayers of Wadestown to make up the deficit. The Chief Justice observed that the whole tramway system had shown u nrotit; and the whole question was: Has the City Corporation authority to levy a Special" rate upon Wadestown properties to make good any loss that may bo discovered in the running of the extension? ' Mr. O'Shea contended that the corporation was justified in keeping a separate "account against Wadestown, and depreciation had, to be written off before interest and sinking fund could be' pro-vided-for out of revenue. Inasmuch as the revenue from the Wadestown tram had not proved equal to, these provisions he held the City Corporation was entitled to exercise its powers and levy a rate to make good any loss. •

After argument. Their Honours intimated that t.hcv would take'time to consider their judgment.