BATING NATIVE LANDS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 460, 27 April 1912, Page 7

BATING NATIVE LANDS.

In connection with the rating of native lands the following judgment, delivered by Mr Crooke, S.M., at Opunake. in a case in which the Egmont County Council sued Rongamaora and others for the recovery of rates, will be of special interest to King" Country local bodies. A certain amount of doubt appears to exist in the minds of some people as to how the responsibility for rates is borne. It will be seen that, according to the section of the Rating Act quoted by the magistrate, and the general trend of his judgment, the responsibility attaching to owners or occupiers is widespread. His "Worship said the land in ques tion was part of the West Coast settlement reserves and was vested in the Public Trustee in trust for the native owners. The Public Trustee has the legal estate, and the powers of administration. There was no doubt that the land came under the definition of native freehold land. The defendants were not occpiers in the ordinary sense as they had not a tenancy ofVix months certain, but under section G of the Rating Act, 1910, which said: "In the case of native land, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act, if there is no occupier thereof within the meaning of that Act other than the owner, then the person who is in actual occupation thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier for all the purposes of the principal Act, and of this Act, whether he occupies the land by virtue of a tenancy for any fixed period or at will or otherwise howsoever, and whether his occupation thereof is lawful or unlawful." The evidence was conclusive that they were actually in occuDation of the land. At the hearing counsel for plaintiff asked to amend the summons by inserting "Nominated Maori owners," which he had granted. He waa now satisfied the amendment should not have bpen made, but he did not see anything to prvent him ignoring it. Mr Bennett, counsel for defendants, had urged that they were not the only occupiers and produced evidence to show that there were at least two others who were also occupiers. He did not think that it mattered whether there were others or not. Proving that there were additional occupiers to themselves did not help them. They could have objected to the valuation roll and got the names of the others inserted if there were any such Judgment would be for plaintiff for £43 Cs Gd; Court costs £4 16s; translations £2 ss; solicitor's fee £4 14s.

At the request of defendants' counsel, his Worship fixed £lO 10s as the cos'ts to be lodged should an appeal be taken.