RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1020, 8 January 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before J: Mackay, Esq., R.M.] ♦— •■'• Wednesday, January 7. disputed rates. The Mayor and Borough Councillors of Kumara v. J. B. Itunn.—Claim ss, for rates dne on the property of the defendant in Seddon street. The Town Clerk appeared for the Borough Council, and Mr Guinness for the defendant.

James Wylde, sworn, deposed l lam Town Clerk and Rate Collector for the Borough of Kumara. I produce the rate-book of the borough, which shows that a rate was struck on July 10th, 1879, and payable in one sum on the Ist of August of that year. The ratebook is signed in accordance with the Act. On the rate-book appears the name of Mr J. B. Hunn, the defendant, for a house and section in Seddon street, valued at £5, and the amount of the rate thereon is ss, The valuation list (produced) is signed by Mr Price, as Judge of the Assessment Court, on which appears also the name of the defendant for the same property in Seddon street. The defendant was assessed at his own request the previous year, as, when the valuators made the assessment, they inadvertently left out the defendant's name and property, which he requested should be placed on the list) so that he might have a vote in the borough. I applied for the rate now sued for, but the defendant refused to pay, on the ground that he had received no notice of assessment. lam aware that the property rated was in existence at the time the rate was struck.

By Mr Guinness*, Defendant paid the rate for 1878. He demanded that his name should be inserted in the valuation list that year. I cannot speak as to the defendant having a house there in 1879.

W. B. Galland, sworn, deposed : I am one of the valuators for the Borough of Kumara. I valued defendant's property in Seddon street. It was a tent. Iu 1878 I was asked to assess defendant's property* and the same property was there in 1879, when I assessed it. I servod notice of assessment on the defendant on the 6th or 7th of January in that year. Ey Mr Guinness: I believe I gave defendant the assessment notice on the 6th of January. I met him in Seddon street, and gave him the notice. All the valuations within the borough were completed by the 14th oB January, 1879. I valued a house of Mr Wilberg's at £lO. The defendant said he was sleeping in that house. I could not say the tent for whioh defendant is rated was on any particular section. The tent was in existence in 1879.

William Nicholson, sworn, deposed : I. am one of the valuators of the Borough of Kumara. In conjunction with the. other valuator I assessed the defendants' property in Seddon street last year. We did not. value the tent the previous year, until requested to do so by defendant. By Mr Guinness i The notice of assessment was served to the defendant by Mr Galland. I believe defendant asked me and the other valuator to put his name on the roll when we were in the Borough ChamberSi

George Stewart, sworn, deposed : I am a boot and shoe maker, residing in Seddon street. I know the tent once occupied by the defendant j I saw it in January last; bub one night, in a storm, the tent was blown down and split to pieces, By Mr Guinness: I remember the circumstance well, by my chimney being blown down the same night. The tent referred to was erected in 1876.

B. J. Seddon, sworn, deposed I I remember a tent of the defendant's which was adjoining Mr Wilberg's in Seddon street. lam quite positive the tent was there in August, 1878. I can call it prominently to mind by a snowballing match that took place, as the snow was gathered off that very tent. I have also private reasons for remembering the date in question. I could not say the tent was there after that.

Mr Guinness contended that no notice had been given the defendant cf the assessment, and if even it were given, it was not in compliance with the Act. For the defence, be called. Joßeph B. Hunn, who, on being sworn, deposed i I am the defendant in this case. I was employed "by Mr Wilbefg, the surveyor, in 1876-77. There were two tents erected in Seddon

street for our party. I was valued for the small tent in 1-878, It was not in existence in 187 S). it was blown down eighteen or twenty months ago. Mr s WUljerg allowed me to live iu bis tent after - the suiveying was completed. The small tent was on the same section as the one in which Mr Wilberg lived. I am residiug now nearly two years and a-half in the same cottage. I received no nohce of assessment from Mr Galland, or Mr whatever, either verbal or written, t recollect the date of Bulstrode's fire; it was in May 1878. Previous to that date the small tent was blown down ; the tent s f ood in my way, and on the night of the fire I could see it without coming out of my house.

By Mr Wylde J I was engaged by Mr Wilberg as a laborer. 'fUe sections were surveyed after the the tents were erected. I could not say if- Mr Wilberg worked for the Government, T say the tent was blown down twenty although three respectable witnesses say it waß there last January. I do not remember the fall of dnow, and Mi? Seddon taking snow off my tent.

By the Magistrate : I paid the rate in 1878, on the tent that was blown down.

The following witnesses were then called, and gave evidence as to the nonexistence of the tent in question in January, 1879, as follows:—^ John Jorgesson was certain it Was not there on the 9th November, 18?8. James Moncreiffe was positive that last Chriatrnas twelve months nothing in the shape of a tent existed there* William Finlaysoo was looking over the ground before Christmas, but saw no tent.

George Simmon's, sen., remembered there was no tent there after Bulstrdde's fire occurred.

Patrick Rdoney sa w the tent in question eighteen months ago; then it was blown away. C. F. Holmes thought about May or June, 1878, the tent was.demolished. John O'Hagan had a dim ieCotlection that a tent existed there once, bat in February, 1879, it was not there.

Mr Guinness, for the defence, contended that the evidence had com-, pletely established the fact that the" tent had been blown down long before the valuators assessed the property; The whole question was—Was the de» fendant the occupier at the time the valuation was made ? He considered this question answered in the negative by overwhelming testimony, and that the Court would give judgment in defendant's favor.

Mr Wylde replied at some length to the argument of Mr Guineas, and pointed out that the witnesses for the defence were all of various opinions as to the date, one tiatnitlg 6ne month* another six months prior, and others six months subsequently. He cantended that the weight of evidence was clearly in favor of the municipal authorities.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment) said he was of opinion he had no power to question the rate-book or the valuation roll, which had been tendered as evidence. He had no more power to go behind the Act than a returning officer had to object to a man tendering hia vote when his name was on the roll, because his property had been disposed of meanwhile. The objection to the valuation should have been made at the Assessment Court, aud, being of that opinioo, he should give judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs of Court and eleven witnesses against the defendant.

For remainder of news see last page.