RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2186, 9 April 1891, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Geraldine—Tuesday, April 7, 1891. [Before 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.] AH’ IMPORTANT CASE. Geraldine Town Board v. Trustees of the Yoluuteer Drill Shed, Geraldine—Claim 18s 9d, for rates due to the board. Mr F. Wilson Smith, who appeared for the plaintiff hoard, said the trustees were incorporated under the “ Volunteer Drill Shed and Lands Act, 1888,” under which Act any number of persons not more than seven nor less than three could be instituted trustees of a drill shed. He produced the Gazette appointing «. olohel Bailey, Major Moore, and Captain Fearpoint trustees of the Geraldine Volunteer Drill bhed, and stated that as such they were trustees of the property upon which the rate sought to be recovered wan charged. He also read over the definition of rateable property as contained iu the Bating Act, 1882, and the list of exemptions under

the that Act The exemptions provide that unoccupied Crown and Native Lands vested in Her Majesty shall not be liable for rates. He understood that the trustees objected to the rate under that exemption. He also pointed out that in the definition of owner by the above-mentioned Act was included the person entitled to receive the rack rent of a property. He could prove that the trustees bad received the rent for a number of eu'ertainments, etc. Mr R. H, Poarpoinfc said all the trustees wanted was the ruling of His Worship as to whether they were liable for the rates or not. His Worship said the Titnaru drill shed was not rated. Mr Fearpoint said that as far as he had been able to ascertain they were not rated anywhere. He contended thar the reserve was. simply Crown lands held by the trustees on behalf of Her Majesty, and, therefore, thought it should be exempt from taxation. Although they let the hall they reaped no personal benefit ; it was only on behalf of the Crown. His Worship said he had looked into the matter before coming into the court, and as far as be could see the trustees were liable. If Mr Fearpoint had any argument to the contrary be would be glad to hear it. Mr Fearpoint said he had no argument j all they wanted was the ruling. His Worship said that under the Crown and Native Lauds Rating Act, 1882, and before these reserves and drill sheds were vested in trustees, a subsidy was paid to local bodies by Government for any lands occupied by them. This went on until 1888,

when they passed another Act called the Crown and Native Lands .Eating Act Repeal, by which they repealed the Act of 1882, and under section 6 of this Act the amount of subsidy to be paid to local bodies under the Crown and Native Lands Eating Act, 1882, for the year commencing April 1, 1888, and ending March 81, 1889, was not to exceed one half of the rates collected for that year. Then for the year 1889-90 the subsidy was not to exceed one fourth. They bad tapered it off from one half to one fourth for the year ending March 31, 1890, and it appeared to him that for the year ending March 31, 1891, there was no provision whatever made for the payment of any subsidy on accvUiit of these lands. It seemed to him that when the Government had passed this other act vesting these volunteer reserves in trustees, and relieved themselves of paying the rates, they threw the responsibility of, paying the rates upon the trustees. This year the local bodies got no subsidy from Government for these drillsheds, but Government gave them the power to rate the drillsheds separately. It an application to the Town Board to remit the rates had been made it might have bad some effect in inducing them not to levy it. What he bad to do was to decide whether the trustees were liable for rate or not, and reading all these acts together it seemed to him that one of the purposes in handing over these reserves to trustees was that they should bear their own burden. At any rate he could not say that they came under the exceptions of the Eating Act, 1882, as lands vested in Her Majesty, as they were not vested in Her Majesty, but in trustees who had the powerto enter into contracts with them, sell, )r exchange them, with the consent of the Minister of Defence. In the absence of anything to the contrary as far as he could see they were liable if they appeared in the list and proper notice had been given. Mr Pearpoint said they did not dispute the notice or the validity of the rate. Mr Wilson-Smith said in justice to the board he would point out that this shed appeared upon the valuation list supplied by the Property Tax Commissioner. and the board were bound to recognise it. His Worship said as far as he could see the trustees were liable lor the rate now the land was vested in them. Judgment would be for the amount claimed and costs, CIVIL CASE. Joseph Loach v. Wm. Cross-—Claim £1 for the services of the horse Kingfisher. Mr F. Wilson Smith for plaintiff. His Worship having heard the evidence of plaintiff and defendant as to the agreement made, also of James Cross, who had been present at the time, and of James Collie, who lived opposite Cross’, but whose evidence was immaterial, considered that plain'tiff bad not carried out his agreement, and gave judgment for defendant with costs. The court then rose.