THE COLLECTION OF CITY RATES.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2067, 8 October 1880, Page 2

THE COLLECTION OF CITY RATES.

A case which was before the Resident Magistrate yesterday has drawn particular attention to the lax manner in which, for some time past, the business relating to the collection of city rates has been carried out. Mr. Beatty, of the Palace Hotel and Theatre, was sued for two sums of £SB 9s 2d and £4B for general rates on the above properties. Mr. Beattie, it appears, had, before the case was brought into Court, left a cheque at the office for the full amount claimed, with costs. Why then, as Mr. Melliah remarked, was the affair brought into Court at all ? This is the first point in this extraordinary jumble. Then comes the second point. Mr. Haskins writes to this morning’s “ Press” as follows:

“ With regard to the case in the Magistrate’s Court to-day. City Council v Beatty, I wish, in justice to Mr. Beatty, to explain that he handed me his cheque for his rates, which was passed to the collector, who neglected to tell Mr. Barker before he went to the Court to withdraw the case. I may also add that the reason why two summonses were issued was, that one was the rate for the Palace Hotel, and the other for the Theatre Royal.” Now here Mr. Haskins states positively that Mr. Beatty’s cheque was handed by him to the collector, who neglected to tell Mr. Barker about it. And yet Mr. Barker in the Court as positively affirms that he knew the cheque had been paid in at the City Council office. Hero we have Mr. Haskins endeavouring to throw blame on a subordinate who was totally blameless in the matter. Next we pass to point three. Mr. Haskins divides the whole sum duo for rates into two sums, so as to bring the affair under the jurisdiction of the lower Court. It would seem that this method of proceeding was totally against law, for that ha should either have abandoned everything above £IOO or have carried the case to a higher Court. Indeed, it was the mere chance of tho collector having already the cheque of Mr. Beatty in his posses-iou that saved the City Cfiuncil, had Mr. Beatty chosen to stand strictly by tho law, from the loss of £4B. There is concatenation of blunders in tho whole of this affair that does not argue well for the general manner in which the City Council business is carried on. And this is only one of several cases that have, of late come under our notice. lu numerous cases citizens have been served with summonses days after the amounts due have been paid to the City Council. Costs are of course added, and a pecuniary loss, in addition to tho general worry, is incurred. Wo trust that the Finance Committee will institute &. searching investigation into the manner in which business is, and has been, carried on in those and similar cases. No possible end can bo gained by a general meddling and muddling policy. The smoother tho machinery works the bettor.