COUNTY v. CHAPPLE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1125, 23 November 1883, Page 3

COUNTY v. CHAPPLE.

TO TUB EDITOR. SlE—Mr Chappie’s professed object in addressing you in lasi issue was to ilisabuse the public mind from an impression to which your report of the case pointed, viz., “ that he was attempting to avoid paying his rates on a mere quibble.” How far he has succeeded your readers can judge. For my part I consider he has effectually clinched thejarguiuent in support of what he purports to defend. • Does what he calls the facts of the case,make out a fair and legitimate reason why he as an individual ratepayer should not nay this rate, or are they proof in support that his defence rested on a mere technicality or quibble, f.et us look for a little into the natme of these facts. They do not dispute the power of the loci' body to make the rate, or do they say that the rate was unnecessary or thai the finanees of the County did not require it, or that no serious consequences would have followed if the rate had not been made, it is not said to be excessive or unjust as a whole, or in defendant’s own case, or that it was not fully expected by the ratepayers that they were to be rated. No. the facts stated only point to certain irregularities on the part of the local body, whose duty lay in setting the machinery in motion to levy and collect the rate. Baulked in a measure by the untoward ciicumstances of having a defaulting and duty-shirking clerk in whom they had placed implicit confidence, and an unsettleo dispute over the Chairmanship, a position more attributable to force of circumstances than any particular fault of the body ad hj whole or any individual member thereof These things considered, they arc to be congratulated that the irregularities over this rate were not of a more serious nature, for what do they really amount to ? Firs it is stated that public notice was not given of their intention to make the rate—which means simply the omission of an useless formality. Valuation notices had been sent to the ratepayers, the defendant in eluded, and the Assessment Court had been open to him and them. What then was 1 there to expect but that a rate woul ! follow, or what purpose the valuation. The notification then becomes, as I have Midi, an useless formality, as it must be re-

raembered rating was not now a new thing>ext there is the ratebook not haring been signed at the proper time, and a further illcgation that it was not signed when purno ted to be la this in reality aueh a Heinous offence as Mr Chappie would make appear. The circumstances already alluded 00 doubtless interfered with both the notification and the signing of the book, The omissions once made, the question would arise whether it was most politic to proceed as beat they could, or incur the delay of commencing proceedings afresh, which no doubt would have been a serious matter for the County, besides creating additional expense, and for aught I know might have jeopardised the rate altogether, dlavion chosen tne former course, and gone so close to legal bounds as to stand the test to which it has now been subjected, ihe ratepayers must own that the body ao ed wisely. Where now can wo find fair and reasonable grounds why an individual ratepayer should object to pay his rate. Your argument. Mr J.C.C., will not Indd water. In fact, it is no argument, it is merely adding quibble to quibble. Why equivocate? Better tell the public plainly that you laid hold of these irregularities to gain notoriety, to show the ratepayers, especially those who have repeatedly rejected your proffered services, that you could make fools of the men they preferred before you, in short, to show that you were the dine man above all others, but you have sadlv failed, and your defence that yon were not resting o ■ a mere quibble is as great a failure as the first. If your promised advocacy of certain changes you think requisite is at all similar, 1 pray you withhold your hand. The ratepayers, at least those in the South-Eastern ridings, arc already aware of one particular change you desiie to see accomplished—but hitherto the majority objects—and you may take my tip that your late deteat his not cheated much public sympathy, or increased your popularity, no more would it had you even succeeded. In-tances of smart practice with a selfish tendency over the necks of others, do not inspire public confidence. Rest assured that nine-tenths of the ratepayers are satisfied with the result /I your case, ft is much more pleasing for (hem have the consolation of knowing they*-mSte\ wisely by paying their rates without in curring additional trouble and expense, than if it had been otherwise, to have to reflect that if they had been but as smart as Chappie they could have got off without paying.—l am, etc., Ratepayer.