TARIKI ROAD LOAN.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 4 October 1907, Page 3

TARIKI ROAD LOAN.

i MISLEADING TRiasUUY. INFORMA--1 TIUiS. THE COUNTY COUNCIL IN DIFFICULTIES. L In the Supreme Court yesterday Mr A. H. Johnstone (Malone, Anderson and Johnstone), on behalf of John David- ; son, of the Tariki road, applied for the issue of an injunction against the collection of the special rate on the Tan;a road loan. Mr J. B. Roy, county soaeitor, and with him Mr Hutohen, appealed for the defendant Council, Mr Johnstone explained that this action was (brought to restrain the Council from collecting the Tariki road special rate, for which ratepayers had been sued. The Council was endeavoring to collect £3l 12s fid. per annum, which he would show was an excessive amount, lie traced the history of the loan, it was raised in 1885, under the Heads and Bridges Construction Act, 1882, a • u the amount was '£,1500 for va'iio-i.-j'orks. But the actual advance was •inly £370. Of that amount, only £O2 10s was repayable under the Act. One instalment of £0 ss, raised by the snecial rate, was repaid, leaving £S3 *os balance, and this was in 1886 converted under the Government Loans to Loci I Bodies Act of that ye ,r. .for some unaccountable reason the Treasury had lumped in other liabilities 0 f the 'county to the Government, making a total o, £702 14s lid. This amount was treated by the Treasury and l.y the Council as the Tariki road lorn, and the latter collected special rates for the purpose of [laying interest on that amount. The rates were collected from 188(1 to 1891, and then the Council ceased to levy the special fate until in 1900 paymeat was again aejmar.ded, alter 15 years had elapsed. This action was brought to test the validity of the rate. He submitted that the rate was bad, idealise the demand for interest was on

£702 odd. There was no rate-book m the Council's possession to show the rate had been properly made, and there was no identification of a plan of the lanas to ha rated for the re-payment of the loan. In fact, there was nothing to show that a rating area had ever been properly delineJ. Assuming that the rate ivas levyable, only £3 3s could be collected annually.

| : Mr Hutchen said the County Council I was not in a position to contradict the I statement concerning the conversion oi the loan, but it was directly opposed to Uie information supplied by the Treasluryj to the Qouncil, He objected to the contention concerning the absence or the ratebook, on the ground that it was not mentioned in the claim. His Honor;. Do you produce unv book? '

Mr Hutchen said the Council did not rely upon a book, but upon the resolution of the Council slrikim- the rate He considered it not necessary to produce the book. . Mr Johnstone called Mr R. Ellis, tile county clerk, who stated that he' had not 111 his possession a rate-book for 1885, in connection with tllis loan. Mr J. B. Lairson had been the clerk at the time.

After argument and explanation, His Honor said that to him it appeared that one result of these proceedings had been to reduce.the liability from £7OO to £7O odd. includin- principal and interest. That having heen established, he thought it should be possiolc to come to some equitable amusement.

Mr Johnstone maintained that the rate had never been legally made. lr it ever had heen made it was for a year only, and its term had expired. Council had not complied with the formalities, and therefore its rate could not be valid. Mr Hutchen argued that, it being proved, that the rate had been strucK and the debt was current, then no court proceedings could quash the ri.te. His Honor: Not even if it is irregular? Mr Hutchen: Not even if it is irregular, your Honor. His Honor: Nor even if you are collecting too much? Mr Hutchen: That' is so, your Honor. There is no remedy in this court. His Honor: No remedy 1

Mr Hutchen: There is no remedy 111 law. The ratepayers have their remedy, of course, through their delegates, Urn members of the Council. His Honor and Mr Hutchen had some argument as to whether or not the Council could legally vary the amount 01 the rate, even if, on account of increased valuations, the original r.;tc of three-farthings in the £ produ ed mo'e than was necessary for the payment of" interest on the loan . Mr Hutchea said the Council was compelled to collect the full rate, uc then slated the Council was endeavoring to collect only a sixth 01 the amount entitled by law to levy. His Honor: Then you say your rate is bad?

Mr Hutchen did not admit that. " He did not admit, either, that the rate had always boon levied on £702 odd. • The Council was defending what it had a right to in law, not what it had done or was now doing. He contended that the special rating district had been properly 'created. . Any little discrepancy with regard to the preparation of the plans could be set down as a clericM error.

His Honor said he had no power to assume that. He thought the hinds

should have been clearly delined in tlie' resolution. Otherwise any plau jiiigia have been substituted. His Honor asked how much tins plaiutilf had been sued for. Mr Johnstone: For £2 4s Od, your Honor; nearly the whole of the rate. After further argument his Honor said that they now bad the matter reduced to something tangible. The proceedings bad indicated a course for the Council to lake. Up to the present the Council had been overcharging these people. Mr Hutchen: Not overcharging, your Honor, for the Council hasn't collected the rate at all. ' They would have overcharged had they continued to collect on the basis of the £702 loan. 111. Council didn't know the position of affairs. " ■ .

His Honor: That wasn't the fault 'of the ratepayers. It was the fault of your owa bungling, or of the Department's bungling, if you like. Mr Hoy wished it placed on record that the Treasury had notified the Council the loan had been converted into a debt under the Loans to Local Holies Act, 1880; that as from February, 1887, it to £702 14s lid, and ;he half-yearly interest at 4>/, per cent vas £ls 16s 3d. His Honor said the auditor had been aisled, and a settlement should be easly arrived at. The Treasury had eviently ben working on wrong data. Mr Roy wished to make it clear that lie Council had been paying this interest out of the general fund, but under a recent Act the Audit Department insisted on its collection by special rate. This had fcecn done, and th" demands made upon the basis of iacovricC- in' mation supplied by the Treasin y. Mr Johnstone remarked thai ' these ratepayers had contributed their Miare of the interest in tlleir payments to tin- general fund.

Mr Hutchen again contended that the .absence of the rate-hook could not inI validate the rate, though it might make hti enforcement difficult. It was ini- ! peMiihln to quash, the rate. I] Mr Joliiislone said he had not applied 'fin quash the rate. He maintained tin' there was no rate, or if there had been a rate it had been paid off. His Honor disagreed with the latter contention, as only £6l had been paid. His Honor undertook to refer the matter to the Auditor General, and the settlement of the dispute was allowed to Istand over;