Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION.

The question of rating upon mining property for charitable purposes is one that will occupy our courts in a day or two. The matter was adjudicated upon by Mr. Stratford some time ago f When he filled that no clainls could be made by a Charitable Aid Board against a Local Contributing Body on aceohnt of mining property. Legal opinion differs very much upon the point. For instance Mr. Martin, the well-known authority upon Municipal laws; in an elaborate opinion, concludes with: “I am of opinion that mining property should be treated as ratepayable property for the purposes of section 23 of the * Hospital Charitable Institutions Act, 1885.”’ Then Mr. Finlay* an equally sound lawyer, holds exactly the opposite opinion. In Greymoutb* Messrs Guinness, Kitchingham and Joyce hold with Mr. Martin, while Mr. Hannan takes a like view to Mr. Findlay. It will be seen, therefore, that the question is in doubt, and the strictly legal interpretation may be left for the lawyers to battle out. As to the common sense view and the intention of the Act there can be no doubt. The Act permits local bodies to strike and collect a rate upon mining property for Charitable Aid purposes, and such bodies to strike and collect such rate ; yet strange to relate they refuse to put mining property into their rateable value when asked to contribute their quota towards Charitable Aid. In other words they collect a Charitable Aid rate upon mining property, but refuse to pay to the Charitable Aid Board any part of the, rate so collected. If Counties are right in their contention that mining property should not pay towards Charitable Aid, they are certainly wrong in collecting and spending such charitable rate in other ways than that distinctly provided. On this point there can bo no two opinions. The Act may be defective, but is any public body justified in accepting the defective part that gives power to collect, and declining the defective part that provides for payment ? We think not.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19010611.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 11 June 1901, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
339

DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 11 June 1901, Page 2

DEFECTIVE LEGISLATION. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 11 June 1901, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert