RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XVI, Issue 2047, 1 March 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, February 25. (Before Mr C. Broad, Esq., R.M.) THE ROAD BOARD RATE.

J. W. Jone3 v. George Bidgood.— The plaintiff, as Chairman of the Grey Valley Local Revenues Board, claimed L 2 from the defendant as being the amount of rate due on his rateable property aa ifr was described in the assessment roll of the district. Mr W. S. Staite appeared for the Board, and Mr H. Newton for the defendant, who did not appear personally. ,

Mr Staite, in opening the case, recited the circumstances under which the rate was Btruck, saying that he was prepared to prove that the necessary legal preliminaries had been carefully observed and fulfilled by the Board, and contending that even if the defence which it was presumed the other side would raise, namely, that of impugning the valididity of the tax, could be sustained, that would not affect the recovery of the rate, because it was distinctly laid down that the badness or invalidity of the rate as a whole should not avail to prevent its recovery, for even if the rate should be quashed, on appeal to the higher Courts It was in the power of such Court to order the money sued for to be paid, and placed to the credit of the next effective rate.

The first witness called was J. W. Jones, who deposed thar he was Chairman of the Ahaura Local Road Board. The Board consisted of himself as Chairman, Robert Alcorn, and John Reid, with Bernard M'Q-tiire and John Corbett as members for the sub-district of No Town. There was one Beat vacant, that of Mr James Cunningham, of Half-Ounce, whose seat became vacant on Ist January, 1875, and whose successor would be elected on 31st March next ensuing. The witness here produced the minute-book of the Board to give exact dates, but Mr Newton objected to the production of the book as evidence.

Mr Staite quoted the 13th Secsion of the Highways Empowering Act to Bhow that the "rate-book" was evidence and could be produced. Mr Newton refused to admit that a rate-book could be construed to mean a minute-book ; it was a totally different record, and was inadmissable under the Act

The Bench took this view, but the witness could refresh hia memory from the minute-book.

The witness continued : Cunningham's seat bocarae vacant by reason of his nonattendance at three consecutive meetings of the Board. The Board took steps to elect a member to the vacant seat. The resolution directing the Secretary to the Board to advertise in the Weekly Akgus the notices of the election of Mr Cunningham's successor was read. The Board derives its powers under the Gold-fields Act of 1873, a Provincial Ordinance, a copy of which was produced. The Nelson Government "Gazettes," confirming the election of the various members of the Board from the first election in October, 1873, to that of Messrs M'Guire and Corbett, in November, 1874. Under the Act the Board caused an assessment to be made. The resolution authorising the assessment was passed on 23rd November, 1874, On Ist December the acting secretary was directed to advertise in the Weekly Argus for tenders from persons competent to value and assess all the rateable property in the district. The tenders were addressed to the Chairman of the Board. On the 16th December the ten* dets were opened, and that sent in by Mr Richard Reeves was accepted as being the lowest. Between that date and the next meeting of the Board on the 12th January, 1875, Mr Reeves resigned his appointment as valuator, and the tender of Mr M. H. Hayden, being the next lowest, was accepted, and Mr Hayden was elected assessor, and made the assessment. The ratepayers' roll produced was handed in by the assessor at an adjourned general meeting of the Board on 22nd January, and after revision by the Board, who went through every item, the roll was approved by the Board, and signed by the chairman. The minute was read confirming the assessment and striking a general rate for the year ending 18th February, 1876, of one shilling in the £ on all rateable property in the district. I was hon. secretary and treasurer as well as chairman of the Board from the 9th November to 19 th February, when Mr Wakefield was appointed secretaiy to the Board. The rate was made payable at the Board Office as the Act directs, on or before 19th February, 1875. [The notice that an assessment had been made and a rate struck was read from the Wbbkly Argus of 29th January y 1875.] The notice ia dated 22nd

January, 1875, and a copy in writing wfll posted outside tha, Board Office, Ahauraj in 23rd January. • The newspaper i* dat,e<:lj 29th January, but it was circulated throughout the whole district or the 28-H January. The Weekly Argus i* published a day before the date in the im-1 print. The original assessment roll was placed for inspection at the Board Office from the time the Board approved of it till the present time. The "defendant's name appears on that roll as a ratepayer, liable to pay L 2 for property described on the roll. A printed notice was forwarded him that he was rated at L 2, and notifying him that unless the money was paid at the Board Office, Ahaura, before 19 th February, legal proceedings for its : recovery would: be taken without further notice. He did not pay, and I have been authorised by the Board to take these proceedings. Cross-examined by Mr Newton — The. Government f Gazette " notifies that Corbett and Maguire are members of the. Board, and that' was sufficient authority for me to act upon. I was returning officer at No Town, at the election of Mr Corbett and Mr M'Guire. I did not act' in that capacity at the election of Mr Alcorn or Mr Reid. 1 could not say if Alcorn and Reid were requested to stand for election, but I saw in in the paper that they intended to come forward. They now sit at the Board and act as members. I took: the nominations of: Corbett and* M'Guire without having any direct communication from' themselves. < It' was at a , special meeting of tlie Board 'that the , resolution to make a rate was passed, but Corbett or M'Guire did not get notice of this meeting because, as their election had not been then gazetted they could not be legally recognised as members of the Board. Their election took place at No Town on 17th November.! Corbett was. I believe, proposed :by Haisty and; Becondedby Cunningham, and M'Guire was proposed by Ferais and seconded by Kelly. I could not say which of the Cunninghams acted, or if he was a qualified elector, because I am speaking from memory, but I took care to satisfy myself of the qualifications of all the, parties, and I am confident the movers, seconders, and nominees, were all qualified on the. day. of the election, unless they produced false evidences ; of their qualifications. I would, not swear that Cunningham's name is on the official electoral roll, because I never saw it. The roll issued at the election was one published at the Weekly Argus office, and the one which is generally used. A show of hands was, I think taken, but it was not necessary, as there was no opposition to Corbett and M'Guire's election.

Re-examined, by Mr Staite— l have not received a notice from Messrs Corbett or M'Guire that they have resigned their seats at the Board. I do not know as Chairman of the Board that they have done so or taken any steps towards resigning.

I Percy Wakefield, the secretary to the Board, produced his appointment, and read the minute of the resolution passed by the Board at an adjourned general meeting on 22nd January, 1875, striking the rate. Discussion between counsel again took place, as the admissibility of the minutebook as evidence. M. H. Hayden, : the assessor to the Board, proved his appointment, and ai.ao his having valued the property and made the assessment-roll. The defendant was correctly rated on the roll, his property— a public-house at the New Twelve- Miler^ being assessed at the annual value of L4O, ■<■ and the rate payable on. it is 40s. Ihia witness corroborated the evidence of Mr Jones with respect to the post-dating of the Weekly Argus, and explained : the reason of the custom. ; This closed the case for the plaintiff; ;....! Mr Newton in opening the case forjthe defence admitted that the principal point on which he relied to obtain a verdict for I the defendant, had been upset by the evidence referring to the date r>f publication and circulation of the Weekly Ar6us. This evidence went to show that the bare requirements of the Act had been com* plied with in respect to giving the notice, but the conduct of the Board in acting in such an arbitary manner by issuing summonses, and saddleing the inhabitants with vexatious expense the very day after, the time required by law had expired, was altogether indefensible, and showed the necessity of placing: some check upon the Board's proceedings. He would, therefore, abandon: that point of his defence relating to the duration of the notification, and go on to other points he intended raising. He was not going to question the validity of the Act or' the rate made under it, but he would contend that there was not a legally constituted Board at the -time the rate w as struck, and therefore that there was no valid' rate ever made. The celebrated Paroa Road Board, or any other association of ; persons, had just as much power to levy taxes on the person now sued as those who made the rate. The plaintiff himself admitted that Cunningham was not a member at the time the rate was struck, that in fact there were pnly five members in the Board assuming that Corbett and' M'Guire were members, and as five men could not legally perform that which the Jaw directed it would require six to do effectively, it* could nbc be said that the rate had been legally made. The Board not being a corporate body was in a similar position tn the directory of a company. In the latter case the number required by the law must be on the directory, before a quorum could 'give legal . effect to their actions, and a' quorum of a ! Board could not be obtained until thb full numbenof members required were elected. It might be said that these were technical objections, and so they may be, but it was legitimate to use them to remedy a public grievance, for the real reason 'of the organised resistance to the payment of this rate was the fact that the people of No Town were cot' fairly represented at at the Board— M'Guire or Corbett, who represented that district, never recognised the positions thrust upon them, and never consented to act, and whether they resigned or not they disregarded their election. . f , ' There was another argument oh which he would base a motion for a nonsuit, and as he was not aware that it had ever previously been; raised he put it with some diffidence, namely; that in the Act donstituting the Board, and authorising the levying of a rate, there was no provision made for the recovery of the tax should those rated object to pay it. In every analagous Act this power was diutinoily set forth, and he contended that it' was a fatal obseotiqn to the rate that the Act

under "which it wai levied was bad in aw. His Worship said that clause, 3, p. 39, of .the Highways Empowering Act of the Colonial Parliament give the power to recover the rate, when taken in conjunction with the Superintendent's proclamation of the 20th February, 1874, which brought the clause alluded to in force in the district over which the Board claimed jurisdiction; ;- r.rr^.Tfn^^^TfflMr, N,ewton, would -still contend that, even assuming the Board wa« totally constituted as to, the number of itemembera, there was a fatal omission in the Act in there being no provision made for the recovery of the rate, and quoted from the Municipal Corporations Act and other analogous statuteajp^ißhow that this provision was dißtincf^made, and arguing that if the clauses in the Highways Act were applicable in one casey there; would not 1 be the necessity of so olearly^ defining the mode of procedure in all other measures' framed with a similar object to the one in dispjate. •'■'" :> " '- : 'i «; ,t :r His Worship reminded 7 Mr Newton that he wasßtill going back fb.< the. Argument that there was no rate rat all, but the Court, had been led tor jUnderßtand that several appeals had Jbee^Wlgedpin the District Court By his (Mr' Newton's) advice, iwhich was at all events yeryliko an admission that there, was 9. ,ratej» appeal against. : The Court would prefer ito postpose giving a decision,: after hearing Mr Staite on the rionßuit points, for it was unfair to ask judgment at ■present, seeing that a. very important question was involved. If it 'was mer§lf£ 'question of the o validity ;^)f ■'tij$ i f&B8 f the; ,O6ttft was prepared to ' jtidgiiie'nt at '6n(SB, hot the.Board, which was sonjetimes describe* as a .B^oad Board,' although that was 9 misnomer, ha^ v important functions confided to it besides making or mj&ntaining roads, and the general question would require oarefal'conaideristion.' ii i.j? £■' Mr Staite said he had 1 a complete answer to every argument adduced on the other side! The learned' gentleman replied at length on the points, for, the defence, . and then cottteiided' ;thal even if "the^^ ;)^%d^aV a^whole it 1 must \ki ht i^ > - l i^;; l^.^mjpeay so fli fpr; the,,;very gj^rfl^^i^fio now fomented and led on the opposition in resisting the rate were, f oremot Lin the outcry raised for the local self^government, which the Act^was. intended to confer. They now e.ns|s|BSd to repudiate the action of th||^^^^^lected by and from among themsiffiß^fatßd for no apparent reason, but, because .^hey, wishecLto get ouc'of; naying'jfciß |tlie .pr^egertne^Vere so clarriorpus to os^. * The question before the Cour^waß^simpJejone of debt between; plaintiff oand T /defe«danj?. The Court would have to disregard all technicalitiesand specialipleadin'g^ bailed upon Act of Pr<vvi^cial= Lagifllatiwesyfir these bodips ; we'/e fortunately not allowed to interfere with Courts of Justice, and this wise prohibition should berespeoted even by the ; Magisterial authority, . Counsel quoted from the Unincorpora^ed^Board Act, and ; remarked that . he was pleased to h^af the admission of his learned friend that the first point he raised^as a merely technical one, andihat he introduced his second objection with dMc&nce, because of its novelty, but if the contention on this second argument were/allowed, then a general election should take place at every individual 1 vacancy in the Board, and thia argument oa nfied; $0 bility of its/ exteriaiopV which mjut be done before it could avail, meant that if one should,, from, any. ) ;<3anse^[become vacant all the member* should resign, and » new f election ishonld, taketOplacs before' 'any legally effective "act could be 'performed by ' a quorum 'O~f :> the o ltoard. The " Gazetti^' ijioficfc' : *#« ;i su|Bcient evidence of the elec'HonMoif l Porbeft and M'Guirej ani'tHey'lsnbaliaf'haW'taken their place at, f the, Board j^else^nd in ■^cir c resignatiton. •;;W^; srer5 rere I /||§y that t^ey should set up a plea of ignoring the Board as a,, justification fo$ r ;ffiejr negligence of their public dutieai: Such conduct could not be takeniaafan excuse to shirk the reSponaibilitiesolaiiublic position. Mr Staite concluded- by drawing attention to the fact that the^udiment of his .Worship' dhly affected tUbae%ho had not lodged appeals' itf tKe'Dia^lict Conrt. The clerk to the District pourt stated in reply to the Bench, that ! only three appeals had been lodged which -were not informal, and which could be heard in the -ensuing District Court. •• '■[ John Corbett and jß;? MJ'Guire were called for the defence) and , stated that they were only informed^ after the election,! they were elected members of the Board, but they never took their seats, never consented- to j become candidates, and never Held themselves responsible for the 1 action of the Board. They requested J ; i^ie Superintendent to exercise his delegated powers to cancel what, they. cdrisid!etod a mock election, but his Honor' referred them to the Board. They refused; to s^nd .their resignations or to held 7 any \ ctjmmunica^on ; with the Board, .lest itf. a^ould.be^pstrued in counteTiancing.,theiriieleptipri..^; - A witness 1 named George Cunningham created a sensation in the Court by swearing that he nominated;;iJohn Corbett as a candidate for the Board if the ejection at No Town in November, bnt that he was well aware that he> (Cunningham) was not a qualified elector, that his name was not on the electoral roll, aiid' that he was not qualified by legal possession of a business license or «; miner's 1 right i td^take part in the eleotion. ' . >

In .crosßs-exan4naM9»ju}>y Mr Staite, Cunningham said he would not say hia name , was not on .the ie^eotoral .roll then and now. •,.• .: . , ; . ; i;? A'~o i,.-*.,,^:, This closed the caae'f or the defence. Mr Staite addressed the Court on the evidence,' and his Worship reserved judgment until the nextaitting olthe.,Court.

The Court was crowded during the hearing of the above case, and there/seemed to be a deep interest taken in the proceedings and in the ultimate result; r ! '