THE TOWN BOARD.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 474, 24 May 1890, Page 2

THE TOWN BOARD.

I With reference to the second attempt 1 of the Te Aroha Town Board to levy a . general rate of 6d in the £, we have ; through the medium of these columns, ! and also in the coarse of conversation i , with a number of ratepayers, expressed ! the opinion that this second attempt of ’ the Board to levy a rate was just as , illegal as their previous attempt, seeing , the provisions of The Rating Act, 1870, > had not been complied with ; and this being the case that the rate could not ( be recovered at law, until it was legally . levied. The Rating Act, 1876, says: • “ Every rate made bv a local body shall i be made subject to the following condi- | tions,” etc., which conditions are then enumerated in the sections that follow. . Several of these conditions have not been ! complied with by the Board, coi.se- • quently !he rate as a matter of course • cannot he otherwise than illegal ; and ; therefore (without gettinga legal opinion I on the question, or studying the law on the subject perhaps so closely as we should first have done) without hesitation we expressed the opinion that the rate having been illegally levied. cunld not be recovered at law. In this opinion we now find we were wrong, as it appears an illegal rate (unless certain steps are ■ promptly taken at the time of levying of 1 the rate, to obtain an injunction restraining the Board trorn collecting the same on the ground of its illegality) may be successfully sued for by the Board. We recently submitted a statement of the whole affair to a lawyer who has had great experience in these matters. His reply came to hand this week, too late for us to deal with the subject in our last issue, but our readers will see we have lost no time in putting them in possession of the main facts as communicated to us. Our solicitor states that it has been decided by the Supreme Court in Wellington, on appeal, etc., that the invalidity of a rate as a whole cannot he raised as a defence inan action hroughtfor recovery of rates against a ratepayer. We have no intention of publishing in full the opinion and information sent us by our solicitor. We regret we did not write for and obtain the same a little earlier. Had we done so perhaps the Town Board would have found that there is a way of preventing a local body from collecting a rate that lias not been levied in accordance with law ; even though individual ratepayers are not permitted to raise as a defence for non-payment of any rate, the fact of its illegality. But the information and experience new gained may be used with advantage in the interests of the ratepayers on some future occasion* although we hope no such occasion will arise for putting the matter to the test. The present Town Board’s term of office will soon have expired, and we do not think it possible there are any ratepayers in this Town District who will care to see the term of rofe-government extended. Their proceedings since they took office are we venture to say without precedent in the annals of any local body ever called into existence. At their very first meeting they rescinded (or at least assumed they did), resolutions previously,in force, thereby altering the day of monthly meeting, etc., without the slightest pretension to comply with the provisions of the Act, which states seven days notice must be first given of the intention to rescind, etc. Consequently the legal night of meeting still is (and all along has been) the second Thursday in each month ; the resolution appointing that night never having been yet legally rescinded. We neednot here again refer to thedoing away with a public office, thereby rendering it as unpleasant and difficult as possible for ratepayers to have any knowledge of the books and accounts of the Board. With respect to the levying of a rate we say here, as we have invariably done to individual ratepayers who have spoken ; to us on the subject, that we do not ] object to the rate being levied, believing ( such is necessary (if the money is only 1 judiciously expended), but. we do object , to the rates being levied in such a care- » less nianner,wi th out regard to the require- 1 meats of the law. c