IMPORTANT RATING CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 16 April 1907, Page 2

IMPORTANT RATING CASE.

Jl/DCMEXT APPEALED AOAINST. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr. W. I!. liiddell, S.M., gave judgment in the ease of the Omnia Roiid Hoard (Mr. Roy) v. Jury (Mr. QuiUiamh PlaintilV claimed Hi Os (id for rates for the year l!)05-(i due ill respect of certain sections in block IV., Parilntu Survey District. Defendant denied liability on the ground that he had only a limited grazing right over these sections, and was therefore not an occupier within j

Uhe meaning of the Rating Act. JS'.l-l. If held to be the occupier, he claimed that plaintiff must, be non-suited, because the demand did not comply with the Act in the following particulars: (1) The demand does not stale in what capacity defendant is liable. (2) It does not say where the rate is payable. (3) It was not signed, nor does it purport to be signed, by a person authorised to collect the rale. Defendant, said Mr. liiddell, admitted that he held the sections at a rental of CIS a year for three years from the Kilh May, 100-1. The agreement was signed on behalf of (he Crown by the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and was "loosely worded. In it the owner was referred to in some places as the lessor and in others as the Crown, while in a third place the Oovcrnincnt ,although not mentioned as a parly, was referred to as having no responsibility under the agreement. The defendant was referred to as the ten-

ant. The agreement staled licit it was made between the parlies for the grazing -•' horses and cattle on the sections ■ named, and ill it certain restrictions were, placed on the tenant's use of these sections. Although his rights were thus limited, yet he had been in occupation under (he agreement since the Kith .May. 11KI-1, and there was no suggestion that anyone else had shared that occupation with him. Ilis name was on the valuation roll as the occupier, and he bad been rated accordingly, without objection on his part. So far as the evidence admitted receipt of the rate nolicc scut him by (he plaintill. He (the S.M.I was of opinion that, defendant came within the definition of the Rating Act, and was liable to lie rated as occupier of the sections. As to the defects in the notice of demand, the form produced and admitted to have been received by defendant did not altogether correspond with that set out in the 7th schedule to the Act, but by section -Hi a nolicc was sullicicnt. if it was made in writing, ami was in Ihe form, or to Ihe ell'ecl, set out In the 7th schedule, and section

4K made'all rales |ia\'able at Hie (dike ' of Hie local aulliorilv or at :-..,;„. place publicly nolilied for tin; payment Hereof. Defendant was therefore prc.-unic,' to know where the rates were pav.-iblc. snd (he notice was headed '■Omala'lioad Hoard," Hie name of die local aulli.irih making (be demand. On (he whole lie (bought the particular! as to form of liability and place of payment were suffieeiit to comply with the Statute. As to the printed signature of Hie Clerk, that hud been held' sullicient by Mr. .Ins-' tiee Williams in the Southland County Council v. Tuniliull, decided last week at liivorcargill. .Judgment for plaiiilill' for i':i 5s Ud, court costs, and solicitor,:, fee. Mr. Quilliam applicil for leave to n]iIHM.I. _________