The Manawatu Standard (PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1886. MR NATHAN'S ASSESSMENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1676, 5 April 1886, Page 2

Manawatu Standard (PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1886. MR NATHAN'S ASSESSMENT.

In our issue of Saturday there appeared a letter from Mr J. H. HaxHl'ns, solicitor, m which the natter was dealt with m a ;very plain, practical, moderate, and matter-of-fact way. Mr Hankins very properly deprecated Mr Wahbuuton's unjustifiable censure of Mr Ward, the presiding judge, on the occasion of the hearing, rWe have no doubt Mr Warborton has since sincerely regretted the compilation of his letter which was read to the Council at the special meeting held on the 29th ot March. It was, certainly, to say the least of it, a unique literary production, but very indiscreet m many respects, and a letter that it is a pity ever met the public eye. There were very objectionable forms of expression em- , bodied m it, which do not reflect creditably on the writer^ Where the Borough Solicitor erred, m our opinion, was m abandoning his case because Mr Ward ruled against him on a purely technical point. We are certain the Borough did not wish the applicant non-suited, or put out of Court, on a mere informality ; and it was clearly the Borough Solicitor's duty to proceed 1 with his case. He was employed to represent the Borough at the hearing ; and, we would ask, would any other solicitor have refused to proceed with his case because a point raised by him was not sustained by the presiding judge. Supposing the same procedure were to prevail .m the higher courts, where important law points are always being raised by counsel, what would the judges think of lawyers acting m such a manner? After the point raised by. him having been ruled against him, Air WarbiM-ton^ m our opinion, -most unquestionably acted prejudicially; to the interests of his clients,, the Borough, by throwing up, the case. We write thus from an honest conviction on the matter, and with no personal feeling whatever towards Mr Warburton, who, we think, committed a palpable error of judgment m acting as he did. On Mr 'Warbubton's withdrawal from the case, the hearing was virtually an exparte one. And, after all, the point raised by the Borough Solicitor was quite unimportant. It was merely whether the form of objection was strictly legal or not. Mr Hankins' letter on this point puts the matter very clearly, and we make an extract from it. On the first occasion of the case coming before the Court, "the Magistrate distinctly ruled the notice of objection to be admissible, and he said that he considered the heading (hot hearing as erroneously appeared m Saturday's paper) of the printed 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 upon each of his properties, and that he did not think a technical objection should be allowed to prevail. 1 " What more did Mr Warburton want than this? In effect, the Judge of the Assessment Court said, *' I do not. uphold your contention, Mr Wajbphton, The applicjUipn will

be decided on its merits, not dismissed on a technicality." Mr Warburton should at once, and without further demur, have yielded to the Judge's ruling, and have proceeded to do his best on behalf of his clients, the Borough. We say nothing whatever as to the merits of the several applications, or to tfie decision arrived at m each case by the Judge. The applicant had a perfect right to endeavour to get his assessment reduced, if he believed it was excessive ; and if the Borough Solicitor withdrew from, the case, j and offered no evidence, it is not to ' be wondered at that the assessment was materially reduced m every instance, for as we have already pointed out it was virtually an ex parts suit, the Borough not being represented. We consider "Mr Warburton's imputations against the Judge unwarrantable m the ex- 1 treme. What could justify on his part the allusions m his letter to his expressed doubts of getting justice, i or referring to the procedure as a farce., or broadly stating that Mr WardY behaviour had •not* been above suspicion ! Mr Warburton should know that had he vivavoce m Court made such aspersions, he would, and properly too, have been J committed for contempt. We trust that on the next occasion when the Borough is represented m Court, its solicitor will act, to use a very mild expression, with greather circumspection, and with a clearer and more correct , understanding of his duty and responsibility m that capacity. The Council decided at a special meeting, as will be remembered, to take • other counsel's opinion on the matter. Very well, let such be obtained by all means, but let us urge the Council to refrain from litigation, which will almost inevitably involve them m expenditure of the ratepayers'* money, of which outlay the burgessss will most decidedly and emphatically disapprove. We cannpt hold the Borough Solicitor blame■less m the matter, and are very much inclined to question the result of a further appeal to law. We regret that the^ t Council even went so far as to decide to obtain further advice, and think that had the consideration of the matter been postponed better counsels would have prevailed. The beginning of law, is like the beginning of strife, which a wellknown and very truthful verse m Proverbs compares to letting out water. We trust that whatever the other lawyers who have been consulted may advise, the Council will decide, under no circumstances, to risk the uncertainty, as to final results, but absolute certainty, as to expense, which must inevitably attend the determination to go to law.