A WATER RACE CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2577, 4 November 1893, Page 4

A WATER RACE CASE.

At the R.M. Court, Timaru,ou Wednesday, the Resident Magistrate, Mr C. A. W ray, gave judgment iu the ease of Geraldine County Council v. the Hank of Hew Zealand, claim £36 0s Id, iu which case the evidence was taken on the 11th October. His Worship said : This is an action for water rates iu the Waitohi Flat Water Supply district, and the defendants deny their liability on several grounds, the first contention being that they were not the owners or occupiers of the property rated wheu the rate was struck, having disposed of it to the Bank of Hew Zealand Estates Company. As, however, they did not give notice of die disposal before the rate was struck they would, under section 10 of the Rating Act 1882 Amendment Act 1885, continue liable for the rate ; and it seems that the notices were received and passed on to the occupier (Mr Clark). The defendants also contended that they are exempt from the interest rate, on the ground that they were previously well supplied with water, and did not consent to being rated—(section 31, Water Supply Act 1891) —and from the charge for water supply, as they never applied'«th i Council for a supply and did not require it.—(section 36, Water Supply Act 1891). —The evidence tendered by the plaintiff* is contained in a petition for the constitution of the district signed by the manager of the Estates Company (Mr Clark), aud somp correspondence between Air Clark aud the Cpffnpil, and jt is not denied that the property was wp]l supplied with water before the race was made, except as regards the 100 acres in section 16022. I think that the evidence bears out the contention of the defendants, and the petition was signed by Mr Clark for the purpose pf including that section only within the boundaries of the district, that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that + he owners of the property contented to bo rated for the remaining seefipßs. or that they applied to the conuc’l loir A supply of water in respect of those sect km Uffder these circumstances the defendant liable for the interest rate and watef the 100 acres iu section 16022. Tl}o other objections raised as to the validity of the rate appear to me to afford no defence to this action. With regard to the item for cleaning races, the Estates Company appear, as owners, to be the parties to be sued, aud further, I am not satisfied that the work done was owing to the default of the owners or occupiers in maintaining the paces iu good order and repair, it being contended op their part that it was on account of the faujlty gontPUCtion of race, on which point plaintiffs produced no evidence. Tlie judgment >yifl be for the plaintiffs for interest OB section 16022 £2 6s lOd, aud for charges on ditto £1 ss, total £3 lls lOd, and costs on scale of amount recovered. The cost thus were 6s, and solicitors’ fee £1 Is. Mr Eißuerney asked that no costs should be allowed as the judgment was practically iu favour of defendants, but his Worship said that he would allow tlie j ordinary rule of the Court to apply.