Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 4924, 4 January 1877, Page 2

At the monthly meeting of the Wellington Districts Highway Board, which took place at the Lower Hutt yesterday, a point of some importance arose as to the construction to be placed upon the 12th section of the Rating Act, 1876. That clause follows several relating to the making of the new valuation, and provides that “notice of any valuation made by any valuer shall be given in the form in the third schedule to every person whose name appears in the valuation list, provided always that the omitting to give such notice shall not invalidate any valuation." Compliance with this provision must entail considerable expense upon the local bodies —in the case of the Wellington Districts Board the postage alone would exceed £lO ; aud the Board cast about for expedients wherewith to evade what clearly was intended to be the law on the subject. The Chairman of the Board considered that the proviso afforded a way out of the difficulty; and a majority of the Board concurring with him, it was decided not to send out the notices. There must-be considerable doubt as to whether decision is not wrong. The omitting to give notice may not “ invalidate any valuation; but it is very questionable whether the neglect might not he raised as a valid defence in any after proceeding, in cases where persons who had not been served with the notice were sued for rates due. At any rate, it was a point upon which a legal opinion might profitably have been taken. We have a distinct recollection of long, wearisome,' befogging discussions on the point when the Bill was passing through committee iu the House, and have no doubt that the proviso was added iu ignorance of the construction that might with reason be placed upon it. If the view of the Wellington Highway Board be correct, the whole of the provisions in reference to notice in the form of the third schedule is mere empty misleading verbiage. The expense of postage, however, is but a very slight charge upon the coffers of the local bodies as compared with other costs, mcl the work of making the new valuation is found to press very heavily, especially in the case of poorer districts. As, an example, it may be mentioned that the cost to the Wellington Highway Board will be pretty near £2OO, or four-sevenths of the annual Government subsidy. The withdrawal of this amount from the funds of the Board simply means the neglect of roads and bridges iu outlying parts of the district.

A letter from Mr. George Hunter, replying to some statements of Mr. J. G. Bockel in’ regard to a now well-known subject which has been discussed in these columns of late, appears in the present issue. In intimating that the discussion must now be considered to have terminated, so far as the New Zealand Times is concerned, we may be permitted to draw attention to the fact that after all the whole case, which we notice by the Wairarapa papers has excited great attention there, is, iu reality, a very simple one. Mr. Beetham purchased a certain animal at auction, and subsequently felt not only dissatisfied with his purchase, but conceived the idea that he had not been treated fairly by its former owner, Mr. Hunter. Upon this, instead of going straight to Mr. Hunter and having an explanation, when we are pretty certain no dissatisfaction would have subsequently arisen, he arraigns that gentleman before the Wairarapa people, it being circulated widely that he had in plain language been done by Mr. Hunter. Mr. Beetham, furthermore, put that gentleman on his trial before an agricultural society in which both of them took a prominent interest. Under these circumstances when Mr. Beetham called upon Mr. Hunter that gentleman could do no more than let the proceedings, it they may be so called, initiated by the former, go to an issue in order that his reputation might be cleared. This the committee of the Wairarapa Agricultural and Pastoral Association completely effected by their resolutions; and it does seem strange that Mr. Beetham, who was the first to appeal to them as a tribunal, should, so to say, dispute their finding now. There is little more to be said in this matter. Mr. Beetham was evidently of the two parties the one who called in the judgment of the Pastoral Association aud of the Wairarapa community to set him right, preferring that to going to Mr. Hunter direct in the first instance. He cannot now complain if the association have decided against him. It is a somewhat curious fact that the animal, the sale of which has caused all this dispute, should at two pastoral shows have been exhibited by Mr. Hunter in conjunction with an unquestionably pure-bred bull calf, and should in each instance have obtained first prize, to the exclusion of his apparently better bred associate.