CLAIM FOR RATES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4322, 26 September 1921, Page 2

CLAIM FOR RATES.

A TEST CASE. ACTION BY PLAINS COUNCIL. (“Gazette” Staff Reporter.) A claim for rates by the Hauraki Plains County Council from a Waitakaruru farmer, heard the Thames Magistrate’s Court, was regarded as a test case, and is of considerable importance to the settlers of the Hauraki Plains. The County Council, for whom Mr Walton appeared, sought to recover £4, an amount alleged to be due for rates, from L. McKenzie, farmer, of Waitakaruru, who was de-‘ fended by Mr Bryan. Mr Walton in his opening remarks said that the defendant would probably contend that he was not liable for the rate. On a map he traced the area within the county that was not liable for the general rate. He also pointed out the area liable for the drainage rate. In 'the original Act of 1908 an area of Crown lands was set apart for the purpose of settlement and reclamation by the Minister of Lands. That Act did not affect the rating ability of the County for local rates. The amendment in 1911 made ■the Crown lands subject to, a rate generally known as the drainage rate, which came into force in 1914. In 1912 a further amendment altered the area subject to the drainage rate, which was to include both Crown and other lands. In the amendment of 1912 the area of Crown lands defined in the principal Act was excepted from a general rating. Thus exemption was extended in 1914 to an area similar to that.which was subject to the drainage rate. In 1917 the 1914 amendment was repealed exempting the Crown area of 1908. Since 1908 there had been two distinct areas, Crown lands of 1908 exempt from general rates and the land under the 1912 schedule liable to drainage rate. The latter, being the larger area, included both Crown and freehold land. Some lands as a result had to pay both general and drainage rates. The defendant’s land was among these. The defence was a question of interpretation of the Statutes mentioned. The correct interpretation, he concluded, was that the land in question was subject .to a general rate. Lawrence McKenzie said that in 191'5 he drew a Crown lease, his land being partly in the Thames and parfly in the Ohinemuri counties. In 1915 he had received a rate demand from the Thames County Council, and he had paid under protest, which he understood reached Parliament. He had been informed his rates would be refunded. For the period 1916 to 1918 he had received only the Hospital Rate notice, but in 1918-19 he had received notices from both counties for general rates, but he had not paid them. When he had been brought before the council at a recent meeting he had been told he would have to pay the rates. The settlers, however, had decided to figh,t it out, being influenced by the fact that they were paying the drainage rate. They had also contended that if they did pay their rates the money would not be spent on the roads, and they had no county road. Solicitors had advised him and other people not to pay the rate. Mr Walton said that the Department maintained a surfaceman in the area under dispute. ? Mr Bryan contended that the position was an unjust one. The settlers, he said, would be agreeable to pay one rate, but it seemed as though they were bei?ig doubly rated. He quoted from section 6 of the 1908 Act. He admitted that the land was inside the area constituted by the 1912 A'ct and outside the area of 1908. H thought that the matter may possibly be brought before Parliament. The Magistrate said that it was just a question of the interpretation of a S.tatute, and he would endeavour to do so correctly, regardless of the result. The decision was reserved.