EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 270, 3 August 1918, Page 10

EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE

AN IMPORTANT DECISION. 11l the Supreme Court yesterdnv. His Honour Mr. Justice Chapma.ll delivered reserved judgment in the ease on appeal the IfaTori Borough Council v. Charles Bunion Buxton. This was an appeal from a "decision of Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., in <tn action in which the appellant borough sued the respondent for £U Is., duo for rates. The respondent paid into Court, ..£6 Bs. 5(1. The amount payable according to the rate book whs the sum sued for, and this was proved to oe owing. It was, however, stated that tlio valuation of the property had been reduced and that the property was entered in the Valuer-General's records at the reduced rate, but that by some oversight this had not been carried into the rate book of the local body. In these circumstances the Magistrate gave judgment in "equity and good' conscience" undo.- Section 92 of the Magistrate's Court Act. 1908, on the footing of the reduced rate. The question before His Hottaur was as to whether there was a right of appeal in a rase where judgment was based on equity and good conscience. His Honour sa'id that it had been long considered that from the decision of a Magistrate expressly based on equity and good conscience there could be no appeal, and dealt with the matter at considerable length, quoting numerous cases. He held that it was clear "that for present purposes common law and equity form one system. The authorities remain applicable because this Court is not a Court of conscience, as that term has been explained by the Judges who dooided those ."ases. A question arises, however, in this case which has not heretofore arisen in any of the decided'cases, namely, whether, when a statutory debt of this kind is proved, the Magistrate has any power to give judgment otherwise than for the amount of such debt." His Honour held that the sections ol' the Hating Act, 1908, ''show that the Legislature has in sufficient terms declared the amount of the rates to be an actual debt, and that 'recover the same as a debt in Section 60' does not mean recover the same by the process by which debts are reqoversd,. but recover the same as and being 'a debt. Were it otherwise a seriois question might 'arise as to whether under the amending Act. of 1913 it could be recovered in an action in the Magistrate's Court. Being a debt, howover, it is a statutory debt which has lor.g been lecognised as a debt having a different quality from a debt arising out of the transaction of the parties. In England an action does not lie for the recovery of rates. Hore it is made a debt by statute." His Honour held that in this ease the Kating Act and the appeal section of tho Magistrates' Courts Acts were dominant provision. The appeal was allowed, with costs .£5 55., and disbursements, and costs in the Magistrate's Court to be fixed by the Magistrate. At the hearing Mr. T. W. Hislop appeared for tho appellant borough and Mr. T. Shailer Weston for the respondent Buxton.