RATING ON NATIVE LANDS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 223, 19 March 1912, Page 6

RATING ON NATIVE LANDS

A QUESTION OF OCCUPATION. A case of considerable importance to local bodies in Taranaki was decided at Opunake on Thursday last, when judgment was given by Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., in the case in which the Egmont County Council sued Rongomaora and others for Tates. Mr. McDavitt appeared for the Council and Mr. Bennett for defendants. Evidence had been taken on a previous Court day. In giving judgment, the Magistrate said the land in question was part of the West Coast Settlement Reserves and was vested in the Public Trustee in trust for the native owners. The Public Trustee has the legal estate and the powers of administration. There was no doubt that the land came under the definition of native freehold land. The defendants were not occupiers in the ordinary sense is they had not a tenancy of six months certain, but under section 6* of the Rating Act, 1910, which said:. "In the case of native land, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the principal Act, if there is no occupier thereof within the meaning of that Act other than the owner, then the person who is in actual occupation thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier for all the purposes of the principal Act and of this Act, whether he occupies the land by virtue of a tenancy for any fixed period or at will or otherwise howsoever, and whether his occupation thereof is lawful or unlawful." The evidence was that they were actually in occupation of the land. At the hearing counsel for plaintiff "asF ed to amend the summons by inserting "nominated Maori owners," which he had granted. He was now satisfied the amwidment should not have been made, but he did not see anything to prevent him ignoring it. Mr. Bennett, counsel for defendants, had urged th,at they were not the only occupiers and produced evidence to show that there were at least two others who were also occupiers. He did not think that it mattered whether there were others or not. If defendants could show they were not occupiers they would be entitled to judgment, but proving that there were additional occupiers to themselves did not help them. They could have objected to the Valuation Roll and got the names of the others inserted if there were any such. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £43 6s 6d; Court costs £4 16s; translations £2 ss; solicitor's fee £4 14s. At the request of defendants' counsel, his Worship fixed £lO 10s as the costs to be lodged should an appeal b'» taken.