SELLING LAND FOR RATES. IMPORTANT ACTION Wellington, June 19.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 379, 22 June 1889, Page 4

SELLING LAND FOR RATES. IMPORTANT ACTION Wellington, June 19.

! Argument was heard by the Chief Justice [ to-day in the case of Nash v. Rangitikei County Council. This was an action of considerable importance. The plain tiff was George Nash, a resident of Wellington, and at the sitting oi the Supreme Court in Wanganui, in October, he sought to recover damages and other relief from the defendant body on account of the sale of a block of land sold by the latter, in order to obtain payment of rates. The jury found for him, but a case was reserved tor turther consideration. It came on for argument this morning, Mr Jellicoe appearing for the plaintifl, and Mr Brown for the defendants. The statement of claim set forth that on sth April, 1884, the plaintiff was owner in fee simple of 65 acres of land, being part of Block 254, Rangitikei district ; that on the dace abovementioned the Kangitikei County Council claimed to act under the provisions of the Rating Act, 1876, and sold the land to Arthur Smith, of Mar ton, solicitor, in order to recover payment of rates amounting to £2 Is lid ; that on the 3rd May, 1884, the Council duly xocufced a memorial of sale under the provisions, of the Rating Act, 1876, and the said memorial was duly registered ; that the Council did not give the notice required by section 61 oi the said statute, in consociuence of which the sale was irregular ; that the Council had not hei-e-tofore accounted to the Public Trustee, to the plaintiff, or to any persons lawfully authorised for the proceeds of the sale," and ,the .plaintiff had been unable to discover any information on the subject ; that part of the land was of sufficient value to have satisfied the claim, and the whole of the land ought not to have been sold" ; that the Council did not obtain the best price for the land that they could have obtained, wherefore plaintifflosb a considerable sum of money. The plaintiff prayed for judgment for £200 damages, and v that the Council might be ordered to pay him the proceeds of the sale, after deducting the rates and charges. The Council admitted that the land in question was sold in- order to pay rates, bub pleaded that they' were not able to say whecher the plaintiff was or was nob the owner, of the said land at the time it was sold. They alleged that the sale was perfectly regular, that' until called upon so to do they were "nob required to account for the proceeds of the sale, and that owing to the broken character of the land and the absence of roads ib was impossible to have sold a portion of ib. The Council filed a statement of- accounts, showing that 1 the land 'was sold for £47 ss, and that after ' deducting rates and charges, including £%Z for costs of solicitor, there was a sum of £25 Is lid due> to the plaintiff. His Honor' reserved his decision. • * '