RATE QUESTION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 18 July 1929, Page 6

RATE QUESTION

IN MOTUEKA APPEAL T# SUPREME COURT AGAINST MAGISTRATE'S DECISION The ras ( > Motueka Harbour Board v. 11. Trewavas heard at the Supremo (.'mill, Nelson, by Mr Justice Ostler yesterday was an appeal against the decision of the magistrate on a question of rates brought by tho Motueka Harbour Board as appellant against the defendant, M. Trewavas. The magistrate in the Magistrate’s Court at Motueka disallowed the Board’s claim and against, such judgment the Board appealed on the grounds that such decision was erroneous in law. Air Walter Nicholson appeared for the appellant, tho Motueka .Harbour Board, arid Mr Spencer Smith cm behalf of the defendant, JL 'Trewavas. iti the original claims the Board claimed special rates from H. Trewavas til respect, of several properties. Tim Board in making up its ratebook transcribed tho values from the Government Motueka roll to the rate hook in ono aggregate amount instead of separately and tiie Magistrate held that under sections 51 and 52 of the. Rating Act this was fatal to the validity of the rate. This decision was in accordance with a former decision in Nelson Harbour Board v. Hayes The appeal was lodged on the grounds that the Magistrate’s decision was wrong in law. Mr Nicholson submitted in a lengthy legal argument that section 58 of the Rating Act 1925 was conclusive as to the manner of transcribing as on numerous authorities it had been held that that section was not conclusive only in two senses, viz: (a) As to ownership or occupancy; (b) as to the rateabilily of the lands. In all other senses it- was .conclusive and that. some reasonable, meaning and application must be given to the section 58. He further submitted that on authority in terms of section 123 of the Counties Act 1908, which applied to the appellant board, the defendant could not in any proceedings quash the special rate, and that his objection amounted to an attempt to quash this special rate. He submitted also that sections 51 and 52 of the Rating Act had been complied with in transcribing in the matter. The appellant board hud transcribed the aggregate values, the transcription in all other respects being exact; that the qualification in section 52 (2) in the transcription was “as the nature of the rate required” which gave tho board a discretion in the transcribing of values, in that it could do it in the aggregate or separately; and that it was significant that the respondent could not have appealed under section 56 of the Rating Act. Mr Nicholson dealt with other aspects of the law of rating and gave instances of the hardship and serious results that would occur to tlif lending body on special rates and the rating authority if the respondents’ objections were upheld. He emphasised the fact that the claim was for a special rate struck as a security for a special loan of £22,000 subsequently increased to £28,000 for the construction and improvement of the Motueka harbour and that the magistrate had not observed that the claim paid was for special rates, and that defendant's case rested wholly on the objection in transcribing the aggregate values instead of the separate values. Mr Spencer Smith, in adducing his argument on behalf of H. Trewavas, the respondent, dealt first with section 58 of the Rating Act, 1925, as to its statement that the rate book was conclusive evidence in all courts. He submitted that tiie section did not go any further, that it expressly stated, that, and that it was conclusive as to tho correctness of the entries if the entries had ‘been first made correctly. He quoted cases in support. He further submitted that the provisions of sections 51 and 52 of the Rating Act as to entries in the rate book as founded on a valid valuation rate book could be conclusive; that where entries were made in the rate book no on a valid valuation roll, the entries were made without, valid jurisdiction arid were not protected by section 58; that section 52 imposed a duty on tile rating authority which was both statutory and ministerial of transcribing the respective values as appearing in the roll, and that the case was governed by section 51 (a) of the Rating Act 1925 in that the rate hook did not disclose that the rates claimed were of a stated amount in the £ on the rateable values of the respective properties owned by respondent, and that if not strictly complied with the rates could iiot be recovered. He also contended that the failure to transcribe the separate values was fatal to the recovery of the rate. He also dealt at length with Mr Nicholson’s argument for the appellant board. Mr Nicholson briefly replied pointing out the distinguishable features of certain cases submitted by Mr Smith for respondent. At the conclusion of the argument His Honour, Mr Justice Ostler, who reserved liis decision, stated that he had to compliment both counsel engaged for the very able manger they had argued the case.