RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume III, Issue 236, 25 May 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Blenheim, Tuesday, May 23. [Before H. Mclntirc, Escp, R.M.] C. PUKKISS V. W. BUCK. This was an action brought by plaintiff as collector of Wairau River Board for recovery of rates alleged to be due by defendant to the Board, amounting to L 0 7s. Mr Sinclair appeared for plaintiff and Mr McXab for clefendant. Mr McXab objected to the Gazette in which the proclamation constituting the Board apppeared, the] imprint being bad He was instructed that there were no copies of the Gazette of that date in existence, but that Mr Johnson had reprinted it on blue paper for the convenience of the public. It was in fact a reprint document and was not the original Government Gazette. His Worship was inclined to think that the documents satisfied the requirements of the“ Official Document Evidence Act.” John -J. W. White, deposed :—ln 1874 I was clerk to the Superindent of Marlborough. The document produced is dated 15th May, 1874. Mr McXab objected to the evidence of this witness, as unless he was proof-reader to Mr Johnson, he could not say whether tlic Gazette produced was the one published by f authority. Mr White was simply clerk to the Superintendent, and could prove nothing. He was instructed to state that

the Provincial Secretary was the Superintendent’s clerk, and not Mr White, who was simply a suh-clerk. John White continued—l used to see that everything was published, and in most cases I drew out the proclamations myself, after which I presented them to the Superintendent for signature, then to the 1 rovincial Secretary for countersignature, and afterwards sealed them, ihe volumes of the Gazette were destroyed in the fire. The Gazette produced is one of the original issue, and in my belief it was sent out in the ordinary course from the Superintcntendent’s office. After the fire a great deal of trouble was taken by the Provincial Secretary to make up a volume of the Gazette, and copies were obtained from private individuals. I can only say they were got from various persons. As to this particular proclamation I cannot say whether I drew it por v. liether the Superintendent signed it. I have a special recollection of it being published. It was my duty to compare proclamations with the Gazette. I used to have a proof and a revise. The original proclamation has been destroyed, but I believe this is a correct copy of it. There was a petition prior to the proclamation. Tiy Mr McNab : The document has been folded" in four and may have come through the post. I don’t know where the documents came from. I lie whole of these documents in this hook were sent to private individuals from the Superintendent’s office, and got hack from them after the fire. The messenger sent them out. I can swear this document was sent from the Superintendent’s office. It was in the hands of the Provincial Secretary after the fire. I do not know whether the Gaztttc was only sent to political supporters. To the ordinary course of business it is probable the documents would reach Mr Coulter som%putside person without any interv' 1tion. They were also afterwards sent to Wellington to he hound. The Superintcntendent was not present on all occasions, nor was the Provincial Secretary, when I affixed the provincial seal. I do not remember affixing the seal cn this, hut I believe I did. I remember the petition prior to the proclamation. It was a petition to the Superintendent, signed by a good many, asking that the district should he proclaimed. I cannot say who compared the values on that petition, hut it was done. There was the Superintendent, Provincial Secretary, and myself in the office at this date. I can swear it was done but cannot say who did it. I was appointed by the Superintendent personally. We generally sent a copy of the original proclamation to the printer, when lie would send a proof which I would compare with the original and send it hack. Mr Johnson would then send me hack a corrected proof and a revise. The original was always kept in the Superintendent's room. All Mr Johnson would see would he the copy of the original proclamation, the corrected proof and the revise. By Mr Sinclair—Copies of the Gazette sent to the officials in Wellington. I™he Court—The paper upon which the document is printed was the ordinary paper used. I have a specific recollection of the proclamation being issued. The volume in my hand has been made up from time to time since the fire. I think the hook was hound some time in 1877. At this stage the Court adjourned till 2 o’clock.

Upon the Court resuming, C. Purkiss deposed : I am Collector to the Lower Wairau Rivers Board. Mr M‘Nab desired that this should he proved by the production of his appointment in writing, as unless lie was so appointed he could not sue. The minute hock was therefore produced, containing a resolution appointing Mr Burkiss collector on March 18, ISBO. C. Purkiss :—I am the person mentioned in that minute. I am also the person referred to in minute of 17th March, 18S1, authorising the Collector to sue for outstanding rates. My appointment has never been revoked. The hook produced is the rate hook for the year 1880-1881. The properties of Mr Blick upon which the rates arc now sued for arc within the district as dctn"*d by the proclamation produced this mormng. I have on 7th December applied to Mr Blick to the amount, £9 7s, by sending notice to his house. It has not been paid. R. Nosworthy : I am .Secretary to the Lower Wairau River Board, and on Oct. 6, 18S0, I caused to l e inserted an advertisement, notifying that a rate would he levied on property witliir the d^trict. Mr M‘Nab objee dto ' ie minute recording this, as the proceedings of this meeting had not been signed by the Chairman as having been read and confirmed. R. D. Nosworthy : I was present at a meeting when a resolution was passed author ising me to insert an advertisement notifying the intention of the Board to’levy a rate. This resolution was passed on 6th Oct., 1880, and I caused the advertisement to he published on the 7th Oct., ISSO. Ihe rate hook was prepared before I became Secretary. The minutes of that meeting are not signed by the Chairman, but they were subsequently confirmed. Mr M ‘Nab applied for a nonsuit, on the ground that the Board had not made up its rate hook in accordance with Section 65 of the Act, which provided that where there arc two local bodies in a district, the body having charge of the roads shall frame the valuation roll, which shall he taken by the other. It had not been shown that the rat* book of the Wairau Rivers Board w. 3 a copy of the Municipal Corporation’s rare book'. His second objection was that the Collector was not duly authorised to sue, as ihe was appointed in March, ISSO, whereas the rates did not become due till March 31st. The third objection was, that the district had not been properly gazetted. The imprint of the Gazette was bad, as it did not state that the contents were published by authority of the Provincial Government. On these grounds lie applied for a nonsuit. Mr Sinclair contended that Section ho of the Act did not apply, but was set aside by Sections 41 to 44. It was now too late to take objection to the rate hook, and unless the contrary were proved it was sufficient evidence. With regard to the second point, the term of appointment of the Collector was an indefinite one, and was to continue until revoked. Regarding the imprint to the proclamation, he submitted that it was sufficient, the words “Published by authority ” appearing in the title page instead of in the imprint. Mr M‘Nab addressed the Court in reply, and Mr Sinclair requested his Worship to give his decision that day, as a number of rates were still outstanding, which the Board was anxious to get in. His Worship briefly reviewed tne case, and stated he was inclined to grant a non-

suit. Mr Sinclair said in that case lie should desire leave to appeal. His Worship said that if such were Mr Sinclair’s intention, he would like to have more time to consider his decision. Mr M‘Nab intimated that he had a number of other points to raise if the case was to proceed, and it was therefore arranged that his Worship should deliver his decision on Monday next.