SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 256, 17 July 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR RATES EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE In the Supremo Court yesterday His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman had before him tho case of tho Karon Borough Council v. Buxton, a case oil appeal. Mr. T. AV. Hislop appeared for the Borough Council and Mr. T. fthailer Weston for Buxton. The action arose out of a judgment given by Mr. AV. G. Kiddell, S.M. Tho Karon Borough Council proceeded against Buxton for the recovery of rates, and judgment was given for tho defendant on the ground of equity and good conscience. Tho question before His Honour was as to whother there was a right of appeal in a caso wliero judgment was based on equity and good conscience. ' Mr. Hislop questioned whether tho Magistrate had a right to give a judgment on equity and good conscience. The rate having, been struck, the Magistrate could not go behind it. Tho rate book was made up on tho valuation roll for rating purposes, and the rato was at once levied. Mr. Hislop contended that in 6uch a caso all that the Magistrate had to do was to enter up judgment according to the rate book and tho valuation roll. ' It was not a debt, though it was recoverable as if it wcro one. _ The Magistrate had no right to inquire into any other question than whether the rate had been duly levied nccording to law. Otherwise the Magistrate would bo supreme over the Legislature.and the public interest, For the respondent Mr. AVeston claimed that a mistake had been made in tho valuation roll by tho Valuer-Geiieral, who had not made the necessary correction in the Borough Council roll, and that therefore Buxton's rates had been assessed on a wrong basis. The first year after the mistake was made it was pointed out, and the rate was paid, but when no alteration was made in tho amount the following year Buxton refused to pay, the council sued, and the Magistrate gavo judgment for Buxton on equity and good conscience. He contended that the Justice of the Peace Act gavs the Magistrate full power to deal with the case, under the equity and good conscience .basis. His Honour remarked that if tho rate was not a debt the Magistrate was not a Court of competent jurisdiction. Kates had always been recoverable in the Magistrate's Court. As to tho equity and good conscionce section of the Act, ho held that a Magistrate coukl give a decision nnder it no matter what the law, provided that he could not enforce something which was alleged, and he could not decide a case, in which he had no 'jurisdiction. After hearing further argument TTis Honour reserved his decision. NO LIABILITY SHARES RESPONSIBILITY TOR ALLOTMENT MONEY. In the Supreme Court yesterday His Honour, tho Chief Justice (Sir jfobert Stout) delivered reserved judgment in a case on appeal heard last week, iu which Frederick John Lysnar, sheepfarmer, of Gisborne, was the appellant and the Mammoth Molybdenite Mines (No Liability) Company, respondents. The appeal was against a decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in an action, wherein appellant claimed relief in respect of allotment monev (2s. Gd. per share) on 500 6liares in the company, also for one call of 2s. per. share. The Magistrate decided in favour of the company for .262 10s. (allotment money), with costs i£G 13s. 6d. The grounds of the nppeal were that the -judgment was erroneous in matter of fact and wrong in point of law; that thero was no evidence to support the judgment, and that no contract was disclosed. His Honour held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to give judgment for tho payment of that sum of money duo by tho appellant to the respondent company. The allotment of 2s. (id. per share was not a call, and therefore the provisions of Section 317 of the Companies Act had no application to the amount sued for. The nppeal was dismissed with costs, £7 7s. At tho hearing Mr. T. Neave appeared for the appellant and Mr. D. M. Findlay for tho company.