R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 236, 16 September 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT, GISBORNE.

(Before J. Booth, Esq., R.M.) THIS DAY. E. Devery v. Mokaore. Claim £ll 3s. An order was made that the amount be paid on or before this day month, in default 11 days. J. Warren v. J. Robertson. Claim £8 7s. lOd. for County Rates. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. Kenny for defendant. The evidence of the parties in this case was heard on the 11th of July last. Mr. Kenny took two objections, viz.:— First, that the particulars upon the face of the summons were insufficient, and did not show the property in respect of which the rate was payable. The particulars simply stated that there were 2,500 acres of land situated at Waiapu, valued at £2,500, and that was all the rate-book showed. Second— As a matter of fact the defendant was not the occupier of the property within the terms of Rating Act. He submitted that it was impossible that any rate could be levied, the description of the rate-book being so extremely loose. The rates must show on the face of it in respect of what property the assessment is made to each individual. If they would look at the rate-book they would see in many cases the properties were described, and so in a rough way it would be possible to identify a part of the pieces of land charged on those rates.

Mr. Brassey submitted that neither of those objections affected the case as the land had not passed through the Native Land Couit. The real and absolute defence was on the ground of an insufficiency of description of the property, but they could not go behind the rate book. If the defendant had have gone and laid his complaint before the Board of Reviewers as appointed by the Government, the objection would hold good, but he did not do that. Taking the making of the rate into consideration, and the basil the Cook County Council go on under the Act of 1883, the rate was properly made. He contended that according to the interpretation of the Act, the defendant was in a rightful Jieneficial occupation of the land, as he paid £152 a year for the grazure of his sheep on the said property. His Worship said he would give judgment for the plaintiff. As to the first objection

the particulars being insufficient, he thought that the Council had given all the particulars that it was in their power to do, seeing tha'. they took this rate from the Property Assess ment Ratebook, and that the defendant had fourteen days to make any objection ht wished. The second objection as to the nonoccupation of the property, he thought he was in beneficial occupation inasmuch as he was paying £152 a year.

J. Warren v. Kinross d Graham. Claim £32 18s. for County rates. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. McDougall for defendants. Consinerable evidence was taken in this case, after which Mr. McDougall moved for a nonsuit on the ground that it ought to be the Council of Cook County that sues, and not the Corporation, as it was material to them to say if they had to go against Mr. Montmollin; another point why a nonsuit should be granted was because the defendants were not entered in the rate-book as occupiers or as owners of section No. 42, for which L 6 3s. 2d. was charged in the particulars. [Left Sitting.]