AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2159, 26 January 1881, Page 3

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

[PKBSS ASSOCIATION TBLBGHAM.J WELLINGTON, January 25. Tho Wellington Board of Reviewers under tho Property Assessment Act (Messrs Edward Pearce, W. S. Moorhonse, and W. L. West) sat to-day to hear objections to the assessment. They over ruled tho objections to the manner in which the rolls had been compiled. Most of the oases were not of more than local interest, but an important argument took place in respect of the operation of the 24th clause. Mr Brandon, on behalf of Mr Jacob Joseph, appeared to object totbe assessment of several properties which had been valued under the 24th clause at fourteen times the annual rental received by the owner in respect of such land. He contended that this provision applied to land held in any tenancy exceeding a yearly tenancy. It did not apply to buildings or other improvements on the land. In support of this view ho drew attention to the definition of real property in the interpretation clause—viz., “ real property means lands, tenements and hereditaments, whether corporeal or incorporeal, and includes all chattel interests in land.” The buildings and improvements were never intended to be assessed at fourteen times their rental, bnt all snob improvements on properties should be valued under the 32ud clause, which declared that “the estimated value of all property or interests in property included in such statements shall be the same it might be expected to bring if offered at public auction for cash.” He urged that the 24th clause did not apply at all where land and houses were let together at one rack rent. Possibly there might be some doubt j but, according to English law, whenever a doubt arose in respect to taxing a subject, the taxpayer should receive the benefit of the doubt. The interpretation clause said that real property meant “ lands tenements and hereditaments.” The generic term “ real property,” including several specific terms, therefore the term “land” could not be held to include descriptions of property that were not specified. He asked the Board to give particular attention to this point, because, no doubt, his learned friend would contend that the definition of the word

“ land ” in the interpretation the Act of 1879 would govern the meaning of the word “ land ” in the Property Assessment Act, and that, therefor", it included houses and improvements; but, in answer to that, he would urge that they could not go outside the Property Assessment Act. Counsel then proceeded to show that in Wellington there were many interests in real property, one person having an interest in the land only, and another in the improvements, 'while, in some cases, there were three or more interests in one property. There were properties in respect of which it would be manifestly unfair to assess the landlord at fourteen times the rent. Land with buildings of a tumble down character might bo leased by some person for private reasons at £2OO per year, though its cash value to sell would not be anything like fourteen times that, or £2BOO. The 241 h and 32nd clauses were evidently inconsistent with, if not repugnant to each other, and his contention was that the 32nd clause overruled the 24th. Mr Bell would ask the Court to decide the question, upon the plain construction of the words of the statute, not upon an ingenious device for evading their clear meaning. There was nothing in the Property Assessment Act which repealed the interpretation of the word 11 land ” as defined by the Interpretation Act of 1878. By that Act the term was made to include houses and buildings, messuages, tenements, hereditaments, &c. What the Legislature had in their mind was that it would not be fair to tax an owner upon the actual selling value of land when he had lot it for a long term at a low rental. It did not matter if it was let at a high rental, because he would be receiving all he would be taxed for. The landlord would be taxed on fourteen times the rent he received, and the tenant on the advantage he received. His learned friend had endeavoured to make it appear that section 32 was repugnant to section 24 and therefore overruled. However, it was clearly laid down in “ Maxwell on Statutes" that whenever a general clause was repugnant to a special and definite enactment such as section 24, the general clause was controlled by the other, therefore the general words of section 32 were controlled by the specific enactment of Section 24. He would submit t hat the Board would be bound to uphold the assessments under section 24, and it would not be competent in cases like that under consideration to make' an assessment of an owner’s interest undef Section 32. The Board reserved their decision, and later in the day decided that the meaning to be attached to the word “land” was that given in the Interpretation Act, 1878. The assessments at fourteen times the rental were sustained.