MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 3189, 14 May 1909, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY. (Before Mr C. C. Graham, S.M.) A DREYERTON CASE. George Henry Clarke claimed from Victor A. Jorgensen, hotelkeeper of Dreyerton, the sum of £IOO, as damages in that defendant, who took over the Mulgrave Arms Hotel, Dreyerton, from one Johnston, the lessee, in March, 1908, failed to carry out his undertaking with perform all arrears of covenant as to painting, paperhanging and repairs. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr D. K. Logan for defendant. George Henry Clarke, plaintiff, owner of the fee simple of the hotel, gave evidence to the effect that the repairs required by the conditions of the lease had not been carried out. Jorgensen when he took over the hotel agreed to set arrears right, and it was on this condition witness consented to his going into the hotel. Jorgensen had done 'some painting. The fences were also out of repair. John Henry La Roche, painter, stated that he had visited the hotel and submitted a price of £2B, which he considered would cover the work of painting and paperhanging at the hotel.

Mr Pownall, at this stage, closed his case in view of an inspection of the hotel by the Magistrate. Mr Logan said he would also call expert evidence to show that £lO was all that was necessary to effect the repairs to the hotel. Defendant Jorgensen, called, stated that he had effected certain repairs and had spent about £8 in painting up the hotel. Thomas B. Micbell, builder, stated that he considered £lO would cover the necessary repairs. The case then closed Magisterial visit to the hotel. The Magistrate will visit Kopuaranga in company with expert witnesses on Thursday next. A BOUNDARY FENCE CASE. In this case Maggie A. Shaw, wife of William Shaw, draper, of Masterton. claimed from Alfred Matthews, of Opaki, settler, and Charles Francis Wilton, Opaki, as executors and trustees of the estate of Jacob Matthews, deceased, the. sum of £l3 iOs 6d, half cost of a fence erected in 1901, and 6d cost of repairs to the fence since erected. The three and a-half chains of fenc'nz involved a total coat of £26.

Mr D. K. Logan appeared for defendants and Mr J. Coradine fur plaintiff. The defendants called evidence to show that it was unlikely the deceased intended to make any agreement beyond saying that if defendant, when he sold the land, he would make the purchaser pay. It was also shown that the deceased sold one piece of land with a frontage of one chain in 1902. The Statute of Limitation was raised, as the sura was recoverable (if at all) either immediately after date of agieement or when portions were sold in 1902. The Court held that this defence applied to that part of the fence, one chain fronting the portion sold in 1902, and gave judgment for balance (£9 3s 4d) without costs; holding that death amounted to "parting with possession." ACTION FOR RATES.

The Masterton Borough Council claimed from Thos. Porter rates, the debt was admitted, but the defendant claimed to set off against the plaintiff's claim the sum of £5 8s paid by him under protest in January last in respect of water rates on the Club Hotel. In the couise of the evidence it was stated that defendant was the lessee of the Club Hotel, which stands on two properties, one owned by Messrs Gray Bros., and the other by Messrs Staples and Co., Ltd. The first property is entered on the valuation roll as an annual value of £216, and the other property at an annual value of £BOO. Water rates were charged at the rate of 5 per cent, on the first £3OO of annual value, and 1\ per cent, on the balance. On this basis the Council had charged defendant with two water rates on hotel premises totalling £3B 6s. which defendant had paid under protest. Defendant claimed that he should have been charged only one rate on a total valuation of £1,016, which at 5 per cent, on the first £3OO and 1\ on the balance amounted to £32 18s, a difference of £5 Bs. It was contended by Mr D. K. Logan, who appeared for defendant,' that a water rate was chargeable only under section 83 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, the Rating Act, 1908, providing only a method of collection. Further, that a water rate should be charged in respect of the supply, and that in this case, as there was one building, one occupier, one supply, and one use of the property, there should be only one rate charged, and not two. Mr Pownall, Borough Solicitor, held that the valuation roll was conclusive, and as the property was entered as two properties on the roll the Borough were entitled to collect two rates in terms of the Rating Act, 1908. The Magistrate reserved his decision.