ASSESSMENT COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1280, 26 April 1878, Page 2

ASSESSMENT COURT.

[Before G. L. Mellish, E<q., Judge.] The adjourned sitting of the Assessment Court for the Christchurch district was held this morning at the Resident Magistrate’s Court.

Mr Cuff, valuer, was present to support his valuations, and H. B. Huddlestone to support the Council’s objections. Dr Foster appeared on behalf of the City Council, and Mr Geo. Harper on behalf of several of the objectors. Mr Harper referred to a report of the Assessment Court at its last sitting in which Dr. Foster had argued that the word “ person” could not mean “corporation.” The Interpretation Act of 1868, and which repealed the Act of 1858, held that the word “person” did include a “corporation,” and this Act followed the English one in which “persons” were meant to be corporations. He submitted that according to the Rating Act, 1876, the word “person ” would riot be inconsistent with any body. (Clause 19 road.) The Act was a comprehensive one, and there was nothing inconsistent in its reading in taking the word “persons” to mean “ local body.” A local body was a corporation, and “ persons 1 ’ were also a corporation, and the Interpretation Act had, in his opinion, been passed to help this construction. In the 18th clause of the Act there was one sweeping power given, but no power was given where individual valuations were objected to. Beading on from clause 18 to 19, it was not inconsistent to believe that the words “any person” included a local body apart from the interpretation given in the Local Act. He would submit that the construction to be placed upon the clause (19) would logically work out that way. His Worship said there was reason in what Mr Harper had said, as the clausa<|id not provide any other mode of objections except that given to any local body. Mr Harper said he had noticed at the previous sitting that the whole of the argument went to that point and finished there. His Worship said that this point had occurred to Dr. Foster just before the rising of the Court. He (his Worship) had previously decided that the omission of sending a correct copy of the objection to the person interested must be fatal, and the proclamation did not cover that omission. A correct copy must be sent.

Mr Harper would submit that in cases where the objectors bad not received notices the objections could not be sustained, as it wus compulsory under the Rating Act that these objections should be sent. With reference to the “Gazette” notice, any proclamation could not affect a case which was siib pidice. He had _ forgotten to say that the proclamation would have to correct anything that was dons up to the 15th February, This! the proclamation did not go so far as, and it was merely an admission of a fault, which the City Council admitted they had made in not sending in the notice of objections at the proper time. Ho would have further argument to adduce on this feature of the case after his learned frir.d had addressed the Court. Dr. Foster said he had entirely overlooked the late Act referred to by Mr Harper. Ho Tvouid also abandon the question of jurisdiction argued by him at the last sitting of the Court, but would contend that though at first sight there seemed an indistinct connection in clause 19 between local bodies aud persons, yet on closer reading it would be seen that the word “person ” could not include a local body. - ‘

His Worship said, the 14th section of tba Act provided that a chairman or clerk might send in an objection, but there was no provision as to the mode in which particular objection must be taken. Could it be taken unde r clause 19 ?

Dr. Foster said not. It also seemed very harsh, but the Act only provided that new claims must bo published. V> ht.t be desired to say was that section 19 contained enoujJto show that the word “person” cqiJctJoa be taken to include a_.lff.tf 1 V lips geeou^ rend) If Uyujjp-flto fa mm * tefcl && * * *■'

it could nob bo made to moan so in the first port. His Worship said he saw the distinction, but if Dr. Foster’s argument were admitted it would put any local body in the position of being able to raise any valuation to any extent without there being ary possibility of receiving notice of such intention, or of taking means to defend such act.

Dr. Foster said this whs the case, except the usual notice that would be given, that the Assessment Court would be held on a certain appointed day. His Worship scarcely thought that this could be the meaning of tho Act. D", Foster said that was all he had to say on that point. With regard to his learned friend saying that the proclamation could not be considered, as the case was sub jml ire, and hud said that the same would apply to Acts of Parliament, he had an authority to show that the Governor had power to amend, as if Parliament were sitting, even supposing the case to be sub j tidier [authority cited.] What he had to say was that the sending in a copy of an objection containing the substance of tho information, striking out anything immaterial, or surplus, was validated by the proclamation. His Worship said the Act specially provided that a correct copy should be sent, and it was a question whether the proclamation should override what the Act said, should be specially done. It must he remembered that he had distinctly asked tho clerk of the Council on oath, whether lie could say that the form produced was a copy of what had been sent, and he said it was not. Dr. Foster—But it was a copy of all that was material.

Mr Harper said his learned friend contended that the word “person” in cluu-e 19 could not come under the meaning of the word “corporation.” He would call attention that the City Council as a local body had no right; to come into Court, as if that section applied to them ns a local body alone. The words “local body” in the Act included any Council or any body who had power to levy rates, and the words “ corporation ” or “ Council ” coftld be used as well as “ local body.” Under the old Municipal Corporations Act parties had the right to receive ample notice beforehand, and had the remedy of appeal if desired, and it was reasonable to conclude that it must have been intended that the same Sowers should be given under the new Act. 'he city Corporation hel l 2000 acres of land in the Geraldine district, and he was sure they would not like to be rated too high for that property or have no power of objecting to such valuation. If bis learned friend’s arguments was allowed to hold good they would be left in the cold under clause 19, as they could not object The same argument should apply to the Church Property Trustees and other corporations holding property. His Worship said that was hardly Dr Foster’s contention, as a corporation could object, for themselves. Mr Harper read clause 19 again, and said that the Interpretation Act of 1868 clearly showed the word “ person” to include a corporation, With reference to the proclamation, reading it with clause 88 of the Rating Act, he would submit that tho Governor could not extend the time for receiving objections, as that, would be giving him power to make an Act of Parliament. He would however say that the proclamation did not extend the time after the 15th February, which was the legal date for sending these notices. With all due deference to the person who drew up the proclamation, it was drawn up simply in an absurd manner, and it did not state what particular date the time had been extended to.

Dr Foster—Bead the preamble, Mr Harper said the preamble did not affect the operative portion of the proclamation, and in the preamble no time was extended. After further argument between counsel, Dr. Foster said ho was not responsible for the drawing up of the proclamation as ho was away at the time, but he must contend that if the word “person” in section 19 of the Act did not mean anything but person in the first line, it could not be taken to mean anything else in the third line. The persons coming to object conld not mean local bodies who were empowered to make rates. He would rely upon this that the word “ person” had the same entity throughout the whole clause.

His Worship said it appeared to him that the Act never intended to piece any local body in the position of being able to make objections, and not put them also in the position of giving notice to persons who wou'd be effected thereby. Clause 18 of the Act provided for the objection of the whole of the valuation list, but such a case would be a matter of public notoriety, as every one would know it the whole of the rate list had been objected to, and of the intention to oppose it. He could not suppose that it was ever intended that because the whole list was not objected to that it would not be necessary to give notice to those persons who were. His reading of clause 19 was that, if it was the object of a local body to place themselves in the position of private individuals, they were bound the sam o as private indviduals would be; and it never could have been intended that any local body should have power to take advantage of their position, and take from private individuals all power to object to an> thing they did. Where a lo'-al body was using certain powers, it was expected that they would do so in as formal a manner as possible, and any person would naturally expect all proceedings done by a public body would be taken in a public form. Ho must be against Dr Forster on this point, as it was unreasonable to hold otherwise, as it was absolutely necessary that each person should be served with a copy of the objection, and it was quite clear that th’s had not been done. It was admitted that a document or at-me form had been sent, and one that had turned up had been simple nonsense, and the party receiving had doubtless not thought it worth his while to take any notice of it. A few others of a similar kind had also been seen, but ho did not go beyond the one he had mentioned. It would be manifestly wrong if the Court allowed such sweeping irregularities as appeared in copies which came before it, and it was impossible that the Legislature should have intended that such should be permitted. The clerk had stated on oath that the notice produced was not a copy of that served, but only contained the substance of the objection. He was sorry that the Council or any person should have been inconvicnced, but they must bo compelled to do their business in at least a more formal manner, otherwise the Court must notice the irregularity. He would be against Dr, Foster on the ground that the Council occupied the position of a private individual. If they made objection to a particular valuation they must place themselves in the position of private individuals, and send a copy of the objections to the persons interested. If they did not do so, well then their objections must fall to the ground. Dr. Foster asked whether his Worship decided that the order in Council did not help them.

- His Worship said—Yes. The order in Colincil ’did not help those objections first taken, as they had not been made put in a form by which they could have been validated by any order in Council He would hold against Dr. Foster on all the points raised, and would recommend the Council in future to take better advice. He did not of course mean better advice than Dr. Foster’s.

Dr Foster having said that he had been instructed to take all the objections together, did not desire the others read. The Court rose.