A CLAIM FOR RATES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 57, 12 March 1907, Page 2

A CLAIM FOR RATES

ALLEGED FAULTY UE.MaISIX):AY. U. liiddell, ,S.i\l., 011 Monday morning heard the case in which 'the Uniata. itoa'd lioard elaimcyl JC2 4/, rated and 10 per cent, surcharge from W. JI. Jury, as the occupier of a certain section of Cr<*wn lands in the Spotswood settlement. Jlr lloy (Roy Wilson) appeared for 'the plaint.ff, and Quiiliam (Govett and QuilHain) for defondant. * JX AlcAllum, clerk to the JJoard, produced the rate roll and valuation rolJ fiiiowi-n** - ■ that ilefendaul was rated on tliese sections. He a.lso identlied the demand nolo, in the form of a post-card, produced by the defendant.

Mr QuilJiam submitted that plainiiil' must he nonsuited, or judgment given i for 'defendant. The demand note was' faulty in three respects. firstly, the card <1 U ]K ,„ het out in what capacity the defendant was liable, whether as owner or occupier; secondly, the card did not state where tlie rate was payftbio; ami, thirdly, it was not signed nor d'd it purport to bo signed by a person authorised to collect, the rate, and he submitted that the signature to the demand must bo written, not printed. "Counsel quoted authorities. Again, the defendant was not the owner or occupier of flic land within the Meaning of the Act. Ilia temporary lease of grazing rights (produced) gave the Crown the right to dispose of the laud at any time. The defendant was not given exclusive grazing rights, the Crown reserved the r'ght to prospect for metal, or to do any other work upon Ihe land. The defendant held a mere easement, nothing mora, and he was not an "occupier" Avithin the meaning of the Act. The teat generally applied was this: Had the defendant the sole right to the land? Clearly not. Another test, the defendant could not claim trespass. Sir. I*oy said the first objections were technical, and he submitted 'that in framing the notice of demand the requirements of the Act had been substantially complied with. The A3: provided that rates were payable at the oilice of the local authority. The question of validity of printed signature was stiff a moot point in the Magistrates' Courts of \ow Zealand, but. there had been no Supreme Court decision. Mr. Hoy quoted the "Hating Act, 1804," which defined occupier .13 to lands oif the Crown whatever might be the term of the tenaey thereof, ns tlie lessee or licensee thereof,. The detendaut in ibis action was a licensee, and thus liable for payment of the rate. The Magistrate reserved his 'decision.