APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2900, 12 October 1916, Page 9

APPEAL COURT

LEVYING A RATE RIGHTS OF,-A MVER BOARD T Jft'b caso of the Palmefsten North-; itaifanga \Rivef Beard v. the Mayor* Councillors, and burgesses of Palnielstoli NOi-tli, cahle yesterday befoi'o the Appeal Court, iTirst Division* consisting of Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr* Justice Cooper, Mr. Jußtico Chapman, aiid Mr. Justice Sim. Mr. ..C. P. Skcrfett, E.G., ivith him Mr. H. R. Cooper, of Patihcrston North, represented the appellants, and Mr. C. B. Mbrison, K.C., .with him Mr-. F. H. Cooko, of Palmerston North, appeared for the respondents. -In opening his case Mr. Skerfett said that the case was olio of appeal from a- judgment of His' Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) granting an injunction prohibiting the appellant board from levying and collecting a general rate over certain, lands, in three classes. The .decision of the Chief Justice Was equivalent to a judgment quashing the r.ate. The case, ho added/presented 'some unusual.features, and was reallythe outcome of a-fiercely contested political strugglo, in Palmerston North. On April 14, 1916, the River' Board published notice of its Intention to levy a special rate over classes' of land called A,.8, and C, the proportions to be different to these existing during the year Med March 31, 1916. The BoroUgh fcJoUiicil took exception to this decision on. the grounds that no reason had been shown why the proportion should bo altered; that the Minister of Internal Affairs had' refused to allow the levy of a, liniforrit rate, which the proposed rate partially was; that the members ot, the board had not acted honestly, and in a bona fide manner in making the apportionment, which was unfair aiid unjust. The Town Clerk forwarded a letter containing the above objebtiofis, which Was forwarded to the River Board,' but tlie latter refused to reverse its decision. The BorOUgh Council then applied to the Supreme Court'for' an injunction, against . tlife board, which was granted by the Chief Justice, who held that, in the matter of a uniform'rato, the board had only made a lhere pretence of following the express provisions of the statute, and the action of the hoard w&S not a bona fide increase'. of the. statutory powers with which it was invested.

It. was pointed put at. the hearing iii the Lower Court that iim amount involved in.the aiteraion of the apportionment of the rtitirig was only £282, spread over property of tlio vallio of £1,750,000. • - After hearing argument of counsel, decision .was reserved, and the Court adjourned to Friday. . MAGISTRATE'S COURT 'ffIBFT FROM A DWELLING. Mr.. L. G. Iteid, S.M., presided at th 6 Magistrate's Court. yesterday. . Vivian John. Wallace, for Whom Mr. H. P. O'Leary appeared. Was charged With breaking aild entering a dwelling at Lyall Hay and.stealing. ±!6 in money, the property of Christina Flattery; He Was -further charged with tho theft Of a number 'of silk handkerchiefs, tie property of"his einpldyer. AccOtdiHg to-- the evidence givott on. tho first charge, accused weiit to' the house of Mr. and Mrs.. Flattery at Lyall Bay, between 1 and 2 p.m. on a Sunday, and lator all three left the house together. When Mr. and Mrs. Flattery, retuj-ned ihoine'W'.D p.m. discovered'that ; thelr hottse had bbfen broken, into'and Sis £1 ilotes that we're iii a purse in the bedroom were missing. When accused was arrested he admitted stealing the money. A plea of guilty. Was entered, and accused Was committed to tho Supreme CoUft for sentence. On the setond charge, to which accused also pleaded guilty, Inspector Hondfey explained that accused's parents were highly respectable people, and the lad had been well brought up, but some years ago ho suffered from a fractured skull, which appeared to have affected his'mental balance. Accused was ordered to come up for sontonce when called upon, and was ordered to refund the value of the stolen handkerchiefs.

A PITIABLE CASE. Martin C'oogan, who was remanded aweek ago, mainly for the purpose of cleaning," tottered into court to answer a charge of boing a loguo and a vagabond, in that ho bad sufficient visible means of support'.' Inilondrey. stated that.-. Coogan Was: entitled to a military: pension, which hejalone could.,dedh:wilh. . When ho',,re'ceives ; the-,pension ! ho dissipates it and.falls into .the liaids of the police. Coog'an Was convicted- and ordored to come up for sontence when called upon, provided he enters the Ohiro Home. , OTHER CASES. Frederick Edward Upham was charged With obtaining board and lodging of the value of iii from Alexander Maxwell Russell'by means of false pretences, also With forging a military discharge by altering it in a material point.- On the first charge ho was c'onvictod and lined 405., in default to serve 14 days' imprisonment, and was also ordered to. refund the boarding-house-keeper £1. Oh the second charge he was remanded for a week. ■" Mary RoSs, for whom ■ Mr. H. : F. O'Leary appeared, was remanded to Monday next on a charge of stealing two gold rings of the value of £6, the property of Ada Aldridgo. Bail, was allowed in £10, and ono surety-of £10. Frederick Georgo Smith,-, on threa charges of theft, and Victor Reginald Haslem, on two• charges of indecent assault on a male, were remanded for a week. For insobrioty, Emma Crawford, who had one previous conviction, was fined 10s., in default' tlirco days' imprisonment. Ono first offender was convicted and discharged.