PLAINS RATE CASES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4323, 28 September 1921, Page 2

PLAINS RATE CASES.

PAEROA MAGISTRATE'S COURT. COUNCIL V.. HANDLEY. A number of actions, Hauraki Plains County Council v. others, on account of unpaid, rates, were heard at the Paeroa S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr J. Salmon. Mr E. Walton, solicitor and county clerk, appeared for the Council in all cases. Several; claims were paid into court.

The first case 'taken w.as that of the Council v. J. Handley, claim of £52 18s 9d.

Mr J. F. Montague appeared for the defendant.

Mr Walton said the ra.te demand had been sent out pn October 8, 1920. Mr Montague said a portion of the farm, has been sold recently, and notices of sale, sent >io the local authorities concerned, but his client had been rated for .the lot., including the two- portions that had been sold; Mr Walton said that at April: 1 of this year, 202 acres stood in the name of defendant, -though he had only 58 acres now. At the date mentioned his Council had not been notified of a sale to one, Crosby, until too late to make the alteration for the period already charged for. He could not take .nptice of the subdivision until notified of such subdivision by -the Valuation Department. . He quoted Sections 63 and 27 of the Land Act in support. He could cancel a name on a roll, but he could not cancel an assessment. He had advised the defendant to pay the rate .and set-tie with Crosby and the other purchaser afterwards. It was not competent for any Ipcal authority to change the assessment until notification had been received from .the Valuation Department, The original notice of sale had been given to the Ohinemuri County Council, and a fresh roll issued to the Plains County Council by the Valuation. Department. Furthermore, in the case of a sub-division, he could not take it upon himself to alter the • names on -the roll until advised by the Valuation Department. He had endeavoured to assist the defendant by calculating for him the amount Crosby should pay him, but defendant had done nothing to clear the matter up. He had sent, at -the instance of defendant, a notice to Crosby for rates in respect to 104 acres, but he could not press for this. Mr Montague submitted that under Section 63, noti.ce of' sale had to be given within one mon-th. Such notice had been given by Mr E.. W. Porritt to the Ohinemuri County Council bn March 25, following the sale. The new county council (Hauraki Plains) was formed subsequently, on April 1. Defendant had to give nptice to the local authority existing at the time, which he did ; he was no£ compelled to notify the Valuation Departmen 4 ’. Having given the proper notice of sale, his client was no longer responsible for rates in respect of the portion sold. Notice of the previous sale of a portion of the same block had been given on October 13, 1919. Mr Walton submitted that notice to the Ohinemuri County Council did not constitute a notice to the Hauraki Plains County Council. It was the duty of the Valuation Department to issue a correct valuation roll to the local body, which had been done in regard to the Plains County, and acted upon. Mr Montague contended that his client had done his duty in notifying the Ohinemuri Council of the change of ownership • The Hauraki Plains County Council not being in existence at that time, March 25, five days before the new county was formed, his client could not be held responsible for the omissions of the Valuation Department.

Mr Walton pointed out tha,t in the case of a sub-division the vendor was required to notify the Valuation Department, but not so in the case of a sale of a complete lot. His Worship said the Valuation Department evidently accepted the notice originally sent on by the Ohinemuri County Council. Mr Walton said he had received a notice last January notifying by the Valuation Department the sale to Crosby of 101 acres 3 perches to be correct. Mr Montagues added that the valuation (original) was pn the capital value, and it was impossible to make the apportionments. Mr Walton said the Valuation Department required to visit the place to make the valuations on the respective pieces of land. They should, however, be able to value from their field books. The decision in the case wps reserved. COUNCIL V. HEDLEY. The next case was that of the Council v. Joseph W. Hedley, of Tahuna, the claim being for £23 Is 9d.' Mr E. McGregor, of Morrinsville, for the defendant.

Mr Walton said the rate book had been compiled on the valuation roll.

Mr McGregor said the defence would be th,at the defendant was neither the owner nor the occupier of the lands in question. In answer to Mr McGregor,-Mr Walton gave the dates of the rates being payable ; the notice was not sent out until the rates were due. He had not a copy of the rate notice with him. Mr McGregor submitted that the claim must fail if a copy of the rate notice was not produced. Also the statement of claim se.t out that the defendant was occupier and owner, but he was n'dt.

Mr Walton then went into the witness box and affirmed that the rate notice had been duly sent but, and all legal requirements complied with. The rate book stated the defendant was ’occupier only, which was correct, though in the statement of claim, >hich was a printed form, the word owner may hot have been struck out.

To Mr McGergor: The A’qt provided that a ratepayer had to have 14 days’ notice during which to pay his rates.

To His Worship: The notices, even if sent ou,t after the due date, would contain a date stamp, and the recipient would see that he should pay within 14 days of the date impressed by the stamp, irrespective bf what

date might be printed on the notice. Mr McGregor said the defendant was neither .the owner nor the occupier of the lands in question, and had not been the occupier for some six years. It was a mistake of the Valuation Department that defendant’s name was owner of the Makoro block. Defendant, J. W. Hedley, denied owneiship of the lands since 1916 ar early in 1917. Mr McGregor also went into the -box and gave particulars of the sale of the blocks of land the rates were required to be paid upon. One lot had been transferred to William and Thompson Dalzell. These transfers had to go through the Native Dand Court, and that court had to be satisfied that there were no rates due. Arthur Campbell Rae, of Thames, was the lessee of another block. He had searched .the OJnnemuri County rate book, and found that defendant's name appeared only as occupier of section 4b No. 1. Mr Walton submitted that the Valuation Department’s roll was the foundation of all local bodies’ rating, and -they could no.t go beyond. Mr McGregor said all the defendant had to do was to give notice that he was not the occupier. Defendant did not get. his rate notice until two months after the due date. His Worship reserved his decision in both cases.

In the following cases judgment was given flor the Council: G. Smith, claim £3B 10s lid, with £4 8s costs; A. V. Groves, £4 2s, with £1 3s 6d costs.