RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4446, 19 June 1875, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, June 18. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., 8.M.,) DBCNKEiTNESS. Edward Turner was charged with having been drunk and disorderly. While in the lockup prisoner had endeavored to effect an escape by prizing the cell door open, but when disturbed In the operation he " laid him down to sleep," and when Sergeant Monaghan entered the cell Edward was snoring disgustingly loud. The Bench imposed a fine of 205., and costs. William Fawcett wa3 charged with having been drunk and incapable. He had come to town the previous day to attend the old settlers' meeting and had been enticed to take a drop too much. Discharged with a caution. . James Devine was fined 20s. for having on the previous day been drunk and disorderly. The arresting constable had found him assaulting anotherman in Manners-street. Elizabeth Downey, charged with having been drunk, and illegally on the Roman Catholic Chapel premises at the Upper Hutt on the previous day, was fined 20s. Robert Strachan was charged with having been drunk and incapable, and assaulting two Maoris near the railway station the previous day. For the assault on the two men he was sentenced to undergo a month's imprisonment for each-offence, but the Magistrate considering his youth (he being only twenty years of a<»e), allowed the sentences to run concurrently. The charge of drunkenness was not pressed. VAGRANCY. Mary Ann Mason was charged with being a vagrant. Sergeant Monaghan proved that sho had come to the police station asking some questions from the cook, but upon his (Sergeant Monaghan's) approach she made off. The sergeant further stated that the woman is a notorious prostitute, and was bringing up her children in the same way ; and she was drunk eternally.--The Superintendent of Police also stated that the woman had a very bad character; the neighbors were continually complaining about her. He had on a former occasion taken two of her children away, and got them into respectable places, but there were several at home now who were being brought up to prostitution. If the prisoner were°sentenced he would get them away too, as he had places for them.—The woman denied every word of what had been stated, and said she came to the station to ask how her children were getting on. Mr. Crawford remarked that the mere fact of her coming to

the station to make inquiries was scarcely punishable, but he would adjourn the case till Tuesday, in order that neighbors of defendant might give evidence as to her character and conduct.

Two drunken debauched-looking women, one of whom registered herself as Miss Ann Matthews, the other being content to be known as plain Margaret Smith, were charged with vagrancy. Neither was sufficiently sober to comprehend rightly what was being said in court, and they were remanded till Tuesday. CIVIL OASES. Walter White v. L. H. Robinson.—Mr. Shaw for plaintiff, and Mr. Bell for defendant. Defendant is in business as a blacksmith at the Upper Hutt, and plaintiff alleged that Ire had worked for him a fortnight, at the rate of £2 os. per week, according " to agreement, but had never been paid. " Defendant did not appear, and Mr. Bell consented to a verdict for amount, with costs. Albert White v. Same.—Counsel engaged, as before. Claim for £5, wages due. The fact that the money had been earned was not disputed. In cross-examination plaintiff admitted that he had received an order for the amount, but did not get it cashed. Since then he had not applied to defendant till he sent a summons. Mr. Bell contended that defendant was not liable for the amount now. He had given plaintiff an order on a third party, who was indebted to him at the time, and had since settled with that third party, to whom plaintiff should apply for hiu money. As the document was considered of value in the case, and as Mr. Shaw declined to produce it without notice, the case was adjourned till Thursday, that defendant's counsel might serve plaintiff with notice to produce.

THE WATEK-BATE CASE. William Hester, in his capacity as Town Clerk, proceeded against C. K. Jeffs, of Lambton-quay, to recover from him £7 155., rates due for the year 1874-5, by virtue of the Acts imposing a general Corporation rate and a waterworks rate. Mr. Travers, City Solicitor, appeared to conduct the case on behalf of the Corporation, and Mr. Buckley to conduct the defence. The Town Clerk produced the waterworks ratebook, in which Mr. Jeffs' name appeared as owing £i lis., and also the general ratebook, by which he appeared a debtor of £3 ss.

Charles Howe proved that he was in the employ of the City Council, and that in the month of March last he left demands for rates at the house of Mr. Jeffs, on Lambton-quay. The demands corresponded with the butt produced and which he had initialed.

Mr. Buckley : Do you remember the date on which you left the demand ? Witness: Yes; it was the 16th March. Was Mr. Jeffs at home? No;I think not. I believe I gave the demand to Mrs. Jeffs. Was anything said at the time ? I think not.

You did nothing else than merely give in fhe notice ? No, sir.

When were you authorised to receive payments of rates as collector ? I am not collector.

Well, did you ever receive payment ? lam not collector.

It is not your duty then to receive payment of the rate ? No, sir.

Simply to serve the notices ? Yes. Mr. Ames, rate-collector, proved that Mr. Jeffs' rate had not been paid. Mr. Buckley: Have you made any demand upon Mr. Jeffs ? Witness: I have not. You are the authorised person to receive rates ? Ye 3 ; but we all receive rates. Yes ; but you are the only person specially authorised by resolution of Council to receive rates ? Yes.

Well, you have made no demand upon Jeffs ? I have not personally. Do you know whether there has been a resolution passed by the Council authorising rates to be collected half-yearly ? Yes ; I believe so.

Mr. Travei'3: That does not come into force till next year. Examination continued: Have you the custody of the books—the minute-book, say? No ; the Town-Clerk has them. Mr. Travers said that was the case. Mr. Buckley submitted he should not be called upon for a defence, inasmuch as there was no case to reply to. It was true that the ratebook had been produced, in which it was shown that Mr. Jeffs' name was opposite to an amount said to be unpaid, but beyond that there was no proof whatever. Section 228 of the Corporation Act ran, "If any person rated under the provisions of this" Act fail to pay any of the said rates due from him for the space of fourteen days after demand thereof in writing by the Council of the borough or their collector, duly authorised in that behalf, the Council may recover such rates from the person so making default before any justice, or by an action of debt in any court having jurisdiction, and upon any complaint or suit for the recovery of any rate from any person, the invalidity or badness of the rate as a whole shall not avail to prevent such recovery." But he submitted there had been no demand made either by the Council or by any person duly authorised by the Council to make such demand ; and, therefore, that as no demand had been made no rate was returnable. Then, an-ain, it had not been shown that the rate had been properly made. If his Worship would look at the heading of the ratebook he would see that the rate had not been properly made ; for instance, the 13th section of the Wellington Waterworks Act provided that—" the Council shall, in the month of December, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, and in the month of December in every succeeding year, cause an assessment to be made of the annual value of all buildings," &c; whereas, according to that heading it was an "assessment to the borough rate, made this twelfth clay of November, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, after the rate of Is. in the £." Now, according to the Act, the assessment should have been made—if it were made in pursuance of the Act—in the_ month of December, and whatever was not in pursuance of the Act could not stand —must be invalid, as would be seen in the Queen v. Eastern Railway Company (5 Ellis and Blackburn, p. 974.) Then, again, although the objection was not a very strong one, yet in this case he intended to take every possible objection he could. It had not been shown that defendant could not claim for his property any of the exemptions mentioned in section 202 of the Municipal Corporations Act. Mr. Travers : Oh, that which provides that officiating clergymen shall be exempt. Mr. Buckley (good-humoredly) : Exactly. Mr. Travors : I was not aware that Mr. Jeffs was a minister of religion. (A laugh.) Mr. Buckley : I believe he has something to do with some of the denominations. (A laugh.) Mr. Crawford said he had never heard of Mr. Jeffs officiating. Mr. Buckley proceeded : Another important fact in respect to the water rate was, that in the Municipal Corporation Waterworks (Wellington) Adoption Act, which introduced or brought into operation the Corporation Act of 1872 T from the Ist of June, 1875, it was clearly laid down that the water rate should be payable half-yearly. Mr. Travers : But this rate was made before that Act was passed. Mr. Buckley was aware of that, but that Act was in force now. He also took exception to the style in which the Corporation seal had been attached or affixed in some way or another to the rate ; there was no evidence that the seal had been affixed in accordance with the law on the subject. However, he proposed to call tho Town Clerk for the defence, and should afterwards continue his remarks.

William Hester, Town Clerk, having been sworn, Mr. Buckley inquired when the general rate was made. Witness : On tho 12th November, 1874. Do you produce the burgess's roll showing the name of Mr. Jeffs ? It is not here. Have you the custody of it ? Yes. Can you send for it 1 Yes. [The book was here sent for.] You have the ratebook ? Yes.

Is it signed by chree Councillors ? No; by the Mayor and one Councillor. Not by three Councillors ? No. Was it signed by the Mayor and the Councillor at the time the seal was affixed? Yes ; the seal was fixed the same clay that the Mayor and the Councillor signed the book. Was not the seal fixed some days previous to the signatures being attached ? No ; the sealin<* and signing was done at one and the same time. . ...

When you first produced the book in court was it signed ? It was; that is to say, the general ratebook, not the waterworks ratebook. Do you mean to say that on the last occasion the book was produced, the names of the Mayor and Councillor Gillon were there ? I do.

Was the seal attached in the presence of those who signed ? It was ; at least it was this way : they were in the room, and I put the seal on and took the book to them with the seal wet.

It is only signed by two ? That's all. This is what the 210th section says : " Every such rate shall be fairly transcribed in a book, to be called the ' ratebook,' to be ' kept for that purpose, and may be in the form given in the fifteenth schedule, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case will permit ; and every such rate shall contain an account of every particular set forth at the head of the respective columns, so far as the same can be ascertained, and "every such rate shall be signed by not less than three members of the Council." The Mayor is a member of the Council, I presume ? Yes, I think so; but he is not a Councillor, I think. When was he elected ? In 1874. Well, as a fact, the seal was not fixed in his presence ? As I said before Please answer my question, Mr. Hester. The seal was not actually affixed in the presence of either ? That is so.

Was any time ever fixed by the Council for the payment of the general rate ? The rate is payable on Ist October. No time was fixed ? No, not beyond that which the Act gives us.

That is scarcely an answer to my question. Was any time ever fixed by the Council ? No.

Was any date fixed upon which the waterrate should become payable ? No. The water rate does not appear to have been signed by three Councillors ? No; it is signed in the same way as the other. Is not there a rule of the Council that these rates shall be paid half-yearly ? Yes, but it applies only to the year 1876. Yes;'7s-76? N0,'76 only. At the request of Mr. Buckley, witness read the resolution which had been passed on the subject. Examination continued : How did you arrive at the assessment for the water rate ? I don't understand you. You made a valuation for the purpose of assessing, and I want to know what guide you took ? It was clone the same as the general rate.

Yes ; but I am referring to the water rate particularly. You see part of section 15 of the Act runs thus : " Provided also that such net revenues of the undertaking shall not exceed £2O per centum per annum on the sum expended on the same." How did you arrive at a shilling rate ? It was a percentage. Yes, I suppose so; the Act directs it. But what calculations did you make to arrive at the rate you have fixed ? I had nothing to do with it. The Council struck the rate.

But you are present at all meetings, and surely can tell us. Was any valuation made at all upon which to base this rate ? I suppose the Councillors made some calculation, and proposed a shilling rate, and it was struck. That is individually. But did the whole Council consider any calculation ? I think not.

You have nothing about it in your book ; there is no record of such a calculation ? No; I do not see how any such calculation could be made. The rate changes daily, because as persons take on the service they pay full rate instead of half rate. Then there was no basis on which to strike a rate that would yield 20 per cent, on the cost ? No. Mr. Travers : No such calculation was ever made.

Mr. Buckley : Then if it were not, you could have no power to assess for rates. Examination continued : I understand you to say that there was no time fixed for the payment of the wateri-ate ? It becomes due on the Ist January, and after that we go to work and collect it as fast as we can.

Mr. Travers : I suppose this ratebook is a fair transcript of the rate made. Yes. And I suppose the seal was affixed while the Councillors were on the premises ? Yes, they were in the other room.

Yes. The two rooms adjoin, with a door leading from one to the other ? Yes. And if the Councillors had chosen they could have seen the seal put on. They were engaged in the business of the Council at the time ? Yes.

Mr. Travers : Exactly, and that is quite sufficient. If Mr. Crawford were in the other room, and any business was transacted, it would be regarde'd as having been done in his presence. Mr. Buckley dissented from that dictum. Mr. Travers : Pardon me; it was decided only the other day in the Privy Council that persons who looking from one room to another had seen a testator sign his will, were competent witnesses. The same has been held in hundreds of civil cases.

[Witness produced the burgess's roll, but Mr. Buckley having seen that Mr. Jeffs' name appeared, did not cross-examine.] This was the evidence for the defence, and

Mr. Buckley then recapitulated the points upon which the defendant relied. First, that the exceptions mentioned in the 202nd section had not been proved not to include defendant; in the next place, the general rate had not been properly made, inasmuch as no time had been mentioned by the Council at which the rate should be paid; that the water rate also was bad because the council had not adopted any means to find out the annual value of the rate, within terms of section 15 of the Wellington Corporation Waterworks Act, any way that the mode adopted was in accordance with, or produced the result contemplated by the 15th section. Next, that the rate was invalid because it had not been signed by three Councillors, as required by section 210 of the Corporation Act. Next, that no demand for payment of the rate was ever made upon defendant. Next, that the form of the rate was not in accordance with the terms of schedule 15, attached to the Waterworks Act. That the assessment was not made in terms of section 13 of the Waterworks Act. That the seal of the Corporation was improperly affixed to the rates, because it was affixed by a person having no authority to do so, namely, the Town Clerk, the Mayor being the proper person. That the Municipal Corporation Waterworks Act now in force in Wellington, provides for the payment pf the rates halfyearly. Those were the objections he depended upon ; but before he sat down he wished to ask a favor from the other side—that was this : Mr. Jeffs did not wish to lose his vote, and would therefore pay the general rate if .the Corporation would undertake to refund the amount if the decision went against them. Of course, they would not ask that if the matter were finally decided by the Resident Magistrate ; but that was most improbable^ — an appeal from his decision was almost certain, unless lie could please both parties, which he (Mr. Buckley) doubted. And if an appeal were made, by the time that was settled Mr. Jeffs would have lost his vote.

Mr. Travers did not suppose Mr. Jeffs would get his money back. (A laugh.) Mr. Crawford suggested that it might be paid under protest. Mr. Travers proceeded to answer some of the objections that had been raised, and commenced by ridiculing the objection taken on the 202nd section, and said if Mr. Jeffs claimed exemption under it, it was very easy for him to prove his right. With reference to the assertion that no time had been fixed for payment of the rate, that was equally specious, because it was well known that when a rate was struck it became payable immediately. Notices were sent out, at a certain time fixed

for appeals to be heard, and if any objections were made upon any -ground, they were decided, and then the rate became due and payable within fourteen or twenty-one days, as the case might be. As for the ratebook not having been signed by three Councillors, there was nothing in the Act to say it should be. . Mr. Buckley drew the attention of his friend to the 210th section. Mr. Travers : So far as section 210 went, there was nothing about the ratebook in it. The ratebook was not the rate ; it was, as directed by the Act, only a transcript of the rate. - - . , . , . Mr. Crawford : But, it may be received in evidence. Mr. Travers : Yes, the Act specially provided for it. Then as to there not having been demand by the Council, it was not necessary that the .Council should do anything further than issue the demands. It was not necessary that the rate should be collected by an officer duly authorised, and no person could excuse himself from payment simply because an officer did not come to his door to receive the rate. The rates were payable at the offices of the Council, and so the public, who would have to pay any expense in collection, were so much the better off. As to the ratebook not being worded exactly as the 15th schedule was, that was no objection, because such was not imperative. So long as the book contained all information necessary it was sufficient. The 13th section had a certain peculiarity about it. It had not been shown how the rate was made, but it was not shown that any injustice had been occasioned. Substantially the requirements of the section had been complied with. With regard to the objection that the seal had been- improperly fixed, he thought he had answered that before. Surely it could never be supposed that the Act had contemplated that the Mayor was to go through the process of putting on the seal. He regretted very much that such little petty objections had been taken ; no principles had been involved. It had not been attempted to be shown that Mr. Jeffs or anyone else had suffered any injustice. If such had been the case, and any great principle in municipal ruling had been sought to be vindicated, no doubt every one would have been with Mr. Jeffs. But it was not so, and with every respect to his friend, Mr. Buckley, who no doubt was bound in honor to do everything in his power for his client, and not responsible for the line of action he had adopted, he (Mr. Travers) must say it was a pity that such frivolous objections should have been taken. The waterworks had been an absolute necessity to the town, and everyone must have felt the benefit of them in increased health and comfort ; and, upon sanitary grounds, the Council should be upheld by the population of the city in introducing the water to Wellington. Mr. .Crawford said he must decide against defendants.

Mr. Buckley : Upon what point ? Mr. Crawford : Upon all points. Some little further conversation ensued, in which it was stated by Mr. Buckley that he should probably appeal. Town Clerk v. Jones.—Claim for £l7 55., rates due. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for amount, with costs. Town Clerk v. Ah Gee.—Claim for £7 16s. No appearance of the defendant. Judgment for amount, with costs.

Logan v. Wiley.—An action to recover moneys due in respect of a partnership alleged to have existed between the parties. Mr. Brandon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Allan for the defendant. After a long hearing, the Magistrate ordered a nonsuit, and in giving judgment said he believed there had been a mistake in the whole affair, and that defendant had never understood his position in the business. So far as the evidence had gone, it was certainly in favor of defendant, but as more testimony might subsequently come to light he (Mr. Crawford) thought a nonsuit the best decision he could give.