IMPORTANT DECISION AT PICTON: THE VALIDATION ACT.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 107, 14 March 1868, Page 5

IMPORTANT DECISION AT PICTON: THE VALIDATION ACT.

The following report is from the Press of last week. The Picton Board of Works brought seven cases of rates in arrear before Captain Mellish, R.M., on the Friday previous, that of Mr. Carltons was taken first, the decision in which being binding on the remainder. The claim was for £7 Os 4d., the amount of the assessments for the years 1866 and 1867, for certain lands owned by defendant. Mr. Conolly appeared for' the plaintiff, and Mr. Nelson for defendant. Mr. Conolly, in opening the case, said— That it was brought under the provisions of the Picton Improvement Act ; that all the provisions of that Act, so far as the Board was concerned, had been complied with ; and that the amount sued for was due and owing. Mr. Alexander, sworn, stated that he was clerk to the Board. That Captain Baillie was a member of that Board, He produced the assessment of 1866, which was made by himself and Mr. Alexander Allan. The signature on it is that of Mr. A. Beauchamp who was then chairman. The proper notices were made in the local press, copies of which were produced. The amount charged against the defendant is still owing by him as assessment for the years 1866 and 1867.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nelson—Was an appointed officer of the Board, and received a yearly salary. _ Mr. Nelson, for the defence, raised sevei’al objections:—First that after the passing of the Validation /Vet, there was no provisions made for appeal. Secondly, that the Validation Act was illegal, not having received the assent of Her Majesty. Thirdly, that the General Assembly had no power to validate an illegal Act, and lastly, that the clerk being a paid officer, was not a proper person to be an assessor. In support of the first objection raised, Mr. Nelson quoted the case of Bagge v. Sinclair, brought under the Blenheim Improvement Act, which was tried in the Court of Appeal, and upon the grounds of that decision, contended that the ratepayers of this district would have the power of appealing also. Mr. Conolly, in reply, said that Mr. Nelson had raised objections, not one of which was tenable. They were but vexatious questions, raised merely for the purpose of delay. In the case of Bagge v. Sinclair, the Blenheim Improvement Act was made void on account of certain clauses. If any proceedings had been taken under the Picton Improvement Act, at that time, they could not have been recovered either, for there were objectionable clauses in that also. Were it not for the Validation Act the Board could not recover now; but as it is, ratepayers were liable. There was no doubt the Validation Act had not received the assent of Her Majesty. The Act was only to remain in force for twelve months, and if it had been sent home for her assent, the time would almost have lapsed ere an answer could have been received. However, the fact of the Act having been forwarded to his Worship, was sufficient proof that it had become law. As to the last objection, that the clerk being a paid officer, was not a proper person to be an assessor, there was nothing in the objection whatever. If it had been shown that there had been any underhand work, there might have been some ground for an appeal; but as the clerk was in receipt of a yearly salary, it Avas a matter of indifference to him, beyond the amount of his salary, what the property of ratepayers was assessed at. The Board must have money for the execution of town improvements, &c. The rates would have to be paid, and it'was better they, should be paid without additional expense being added. His Worship in summing up, said that even if the Validation Act was, at some subsequent period, decided as illegal, it was clear to him, that it was binding on him now. With regard to the objection about the clerk being an assessor, he could not see that it was to his benefit to make an unfair assessment. Every ratepayer was to a certain extent interested, and was therefore, according to that argument, also unfit to be an assessor.

J udgment for amount claimed with costs. Mr. Nelson then applied for leave to appeal, on the grounds that the Validation Act was not legal. His Worship however, would not grant the appeal, as there were not sufficient grounds for it. The rest of the cases were decided by the issue of the first.