CONCERNING RATES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 181, 18 December 1912, Page 7

CONCERNING RATES.

INTERESTING LAW-SUIT. Some fine law points were involved in a civil action in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when the. Taranaki County "Council proceeded against the New Zealand State Guaranteed Advances Department, as the first mortgagee of Wm. Humphries, with a claim for £4G 2s 9d, being rates struck by the Fitzroy Town Board (now defunct) for the two years, 1910-1912. Mr. Quilliani appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. J. It. Roy for the defendant. Mr. Roy applied, with the consent of William Humphries, to have the latter joined as a defendant. The grounds for the application were that Humphries was the owner and occupier of the land; that he claimed to have a good defence to the action; and that it was equitable that the owner and occupier should be a party to a disputed claim for rates. After some argument, his Worship granted the application. Mr. F. Wilson appeared for Humphries, and admitted the facts of the case, but raised several interesting law points on which he based his defence.

According to Mr. Quill i;im. on ilio abolition of the Fitzroy Town Board, part of the town district was merged in the county and part in the borough of New l'lymouth, but the whole of the land >n respect to which the .rates were claimed was merged in the county. It was, he said, admitted that the rates were due to the Fitzroy Town Hoard when struck.

■Counsel's argument turned on the construction of section 36 of the Counties Act, which runs as follows: —"When anv town district is merged in the county all rates payable to the Town Board shall become due and payable to the county." In this case, urged Mr. Wilson, part only of the town district had been merged, and as the Act allecting the merger was silent as to the assets, etc., of the Town Board, the general legislation did not apply. In support of his case, he quoted '' Craig on Statute Law," and pointed out that in the merging of the St. Aubyn town district by legislation of 1912, express . provision to meet the case had been provided. The rate had become irrecoverable owing to a flaw in legislation, as provision should have been made in the Washing-up Bill of 1911 for this particular case. As it was, there was no mention of rates due to the Town Board, lie also contended that the first year's rates, those of 1910-11, were not recoverable, owing to lapse of time.

Mr. Quilliain submitted that it was really splitting straws to argue that because the Statute provided for the whole of the district being merged, it had no application where only part of a district was added. Surely the greater included the less? The ease of St,. Aubyn had no bearing on the present case, as the whole of that body had been merged in the borough. If his friend's argument were correct, the whole of the ratepayers affected would get out of paying the rates due at the time to the Fitzroy Town Board. His Worship reserved his decision,