INABILITY RE RATES

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 245, 10 March 1888, Page 2

INABILITY RE RATES

(To The Fah ion). Ir lias often been a matter of surprise to me that the legislators of New Zealand, when framing the laws psi^cd foi the guidance of public bodies, find the government of tho country, should not so woul the seveial septuate sentences in the law, as to render their meaning sufllciently explicit to he leadily understood by ordinary poisons of education ; so that membcis of County Councils, Road Boards, Town or Borough Councils, and all other incorporated bodies could comprehend the meaning contained in them, as well as their relation, and beaungto other sentences or clauses in the Act, without, the constantly lccuirmg appeal to sonic kw\ei to interpret, certain clauses for them. If the legislators ol a country cannot make their meaning clear, how is it possible lor ji lnwjcr to do so. I think it must aiise moie from habit, custom, or the want of self loliancc than ambiguity in the acts themselves, as invnriabl t y the opmionsieceived from membeia of the lepal profession, are so unsatisfactoiy, ambiguous, 'and contradietoiy as it is possible to be, besides being a useless waste of the ratepayers money. This fact was brought very forcibly to mind on reading the letter of Mr W. McGiegor Hay, on points raised and questions a&kcd by the Pialco County Council, respecting the liability of occupants and non occupuits. A truly lawyer-like ambiguous and contradictory epistle. Now what is ifcpossible to make out of theso decisions. Or in what way will they assist the councillors in their deliberations. Just take the two questions 1 and 3 with their respective answers. Question 1. Is an occupier within the meaning of the Eating Act, 1882 liable for rates after he baa ceased to occupy, or does the bare fact of his having ceased to occupy exonorate him from all liability in respect of such rates ? Leaving out the bulk of the answer hero, we will lake the most definite sentence in the letter, which says,' "Ceasing to occupy will not exonorate," a sentence complete in itself, without any pros or cons. There it is, high gained? legal adTice.clear and trenchant. The occupier as was is liable to pny all rates levied on such property even after lie has ceased to occupy. This is of courso taking the supposed case often occuring on goldfields, that tho property that was occupied having become worthless to the occupier, ho or she haa abandoned it. Very well then, under that decision such persons are liable for all rates levied on that property. That is the pith of the answer to question No. 1. Now question No. 3. " Does the fact of his having notified th« local body that he has ceased to occupy, relieve birn of his liability for rates made before leceiptof such notice ? Answer. Irrespective of any notification, if he has in fact ceased to occupy on or before the time of the rate being made, be will not be liable. Two opposing and contrary decisions on the one point at iisiie. One decision directly contradicting the other. "What can be made out of that. ? Which of these two decisions will the county council abide by in case of prosecution for rates. ? They paid money for clearness, but received bewilderment, one answer says a person under certain conditions is liablo, the other answer says he is not. It is a case for all ratepayers to look into, and insist on its being clearly defined. — lam, etc., H. J. Hawkins. Te Aroha "West. February 27th, 1888.