RE NATHAN'S ASSESSMENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1675, 3 April 1886, Page 2

RE NATHAN'S ASSESSMENT.

• (TO THE EDTTOR OF THE STANDARD.) Sir, I have just had ray attention . drawn to Mr Warburton's letter published m Tuesday's issue of your coutetnpqrary. Ido not suppose Mr War- ; burton erer contemplated the letter finding its way into public print, or he would have hesitated before condemning m such unmeasuiHid terms an official, who, by the ra\ei of the position he holdfl r is precluded from replying 1 publicly to the attack made upon him ; and I think, too, the sentence m his letter which so unjustly reflects upon me where he says , "Mr Nathan's maps were placed before the witnesses with wrong explanations, so as to mislead them," is utterly uncalled for. Who placed these maps before the witnesses? Certainly not the. Magistrate, but myself, as counsel for Mr Nathan. The witnesses themselves entirely repudiate being misled. Mr Warburton will not now, I am sure, accuse mo of such unprofessional conduct. Mr Warburton has been misinformed as to what took place m the Resident Magistrate's Court on the first occasion, for, as he was not present, he must have obtained his information at second-hand. On that ocoasion the Magistrate distinctly ruled the notice of objection to be admissible, and hit said that he considered the hear ing of the presented form to be merely surplusage, and that although not strictly m order, he thought it was a plain intimation" to the Court and to the Assessor that Mr Nathan intended thereby to object to the roll of assessment upou each of his properties, and that he did not think a technical objection should be allowed to prevail. The Town Clerk tnen rose and asked for an adjournment, as he was not prepared to go ou wtth the cases' that; day. -The adjournment was then granted for the purpose of enabling Mr Keeling to procure attendances of witnessesses as to value of each property, and not for the purpose of allowing the Borough Solicitor, or any one else, to argue the anfficiency of the notice. A member of my profession who was m the Court, has today informed me that he too understood the matter to be substantially as I have put it. That this was' so is still further borne out by my subsequent conduct m the Resident Magistrate's Court at the second hearing, and before I knew there was any dispute ; for the momont Mr Warburton rose to take exception to the notice, I immediately called the attention of the Resident Magistrate to the f aot that he had at the first sitting ruled the question m my favor. The Resident Magistrate replied " Yea, I remember, Mr Hankins, but I will hear what Mr Warburton has to say." Mr Warburton then proceeded to comment on the printed matter at the head of the notice, when the R. M. repeated almost ipsiatima verla what he had previously said, and again ruled the notice sufficient. J think Mr Warburton will, on mature reflection, admit that he has been a little hasty, and that the Resident Magistrate was, as he invariably is, courteous and urbane.T»l am, etc, ,'■•"■ !