DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTOM.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1903, 16 September 1884, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, HAMILTOM.

Monday.— (Before His Honour Distiict Judge Seth Smith.) IN BANKKUPfCY On the motion of MrJHay, Messrs S<mdes and Napper wero adjudicated bankmpts, and the public exaniiu.ition was oidered to take place on the third Monday in October.

civil cases. Waikato Coal andShipping Company v. William Sinden, claim £35 14s 7d for goods sold and delivered, freight and inteiest. Mr O'Neill for plaintiffs. Defendant did not appear, and after hearing the evidence of the company'^ agents, judgment w,is gi\en for the amount claimed with costs. KnuKiniuoA Road Board v. Robert Lam n, claim £20 (]-> 3d, rates alleged to be duo on lot* BG, 87, and 88, Hoiotiu. Mr O'Neill appeared for defendant. Mi O'Neill objected that the particulars of demand weie not sufficiently explicit. The amount due on the whole land was lumped together. He also said plaintiffs weie suing for ai rears' due more than two yeai.s. The late for 1882 became due on the Ist July in that year, whereas the summons was not issued until the 12th August, 1884. Captain McPherson, who appealed foi the board as secietary aid collector, said he had applied for a summons on the 30th June, within the pi escribed period of two yea is. The Clerk of the Couit explained that the summons had been taken out in the hrat instance in the " District Court of Auckland," but the constitution of the comt ha \ ing been altered, it was necessary to obtain a fiesh summons, and this letter was not issued until the 12th August. Mr O'Neill said, further than this, defendant did not, and never did own lots 87 and 88. Capt. McPheison said the objections weie most compieliensive, and coveied the whole ground. It only remained to be said, after the manner of Hairy Gamp's friends, that there was " no sich a peioon " as Mr Lamb, and the objections would be complete. With regarl to the first objection, he could only say that the paiticulars weie copied from the rate roll .supplied by the Propeity-tax Department. As a matter of fact, lots 87 and 88 belonged to Mis Lamb, and the defendant as her lepiesentative was liable for the rate?. It \\ as ti ue that Mr Lamb had aKo paited with lot Bl>, the null sjte, to the W.S. and C. Co. in 1883, but he had neglected to notify the bond of the fact, and he (witness) quoted section 7 of the Rating Act to hhovv that the person whose name ap peaied on the ioll was for the pui poses of the real owner. No objection had been made by Mr Limb, to his being rated until the 20th June last, and no appeal had been made against the valuation ; Witness also pointed out that under Section 29 of the act, defendant, as a shareholder on the Waikato Coal and Shipping Company was liable. His Honour said that the section did not lefer to such cases as that before the comt. Captain McPherson then went into the witness box, and deposed to the circumstances of the cases indicated by him. In ooss examination, witness said he c mcluded defendant was the owner of lots 8T and 88 from seeing his name on the valuation 101 l supplied by the Commissioner of the Pioperty Tii\, which he took to be collect He had wntten seveial letters to Mr Limb, but he did so out of couitesy, and n«<t because he was bound to. It was his duty to find out the owners of propeity, but he was not supposed to tiavel over the district He took the Propeity Tax valuation roll as his bisi-,, and he had no legal power to alter that roll. He had asked Cipt.un Lind-ay, the manager of the Waikato Coal and Shipping Company fortheiatos due on lot 86", for the reason that he wished to get them. He would be quite satisfied to get the money iroin anyone. Cnptain Lindsay, called by Captain MoPheison, deposed that the company had bought lot 815 fioin Mr Lamb. He had always undeisfcood that defendant owned the othei lots. In cioss-e\amination, the witness could not state positively whether the companj had evei leeeived a demand for rates due on lot <S'(). This closed the case for the plaintiffs. For the defence, Mr O'Neill said the ratebook could only be accepted as pi ima facie evidence. He called the defendant, Robert Lamb, who deposed that the company had owned lot 8(> since March, 1883 Lots S7 and 88 were not, and never had been, his property. If the late roll showed them to be his, the mil was incorrect. He objected to be "billed"' for piopeitythat had ceased to belong to him, «nd for propeity which he had never owned. The paiticulais weie not explicit, and he did not know what he ought to pay. He had several conversations with Captain McPherson, and on or about the day on which he sold lot S(J to the company, Captain McPheison mot him and asked him if he had parted with the land. Plaintiffs, theiefoie, weie fully awaie of the change of ownership. Had never spoken to Captain McPherson about lots 87 and 88. He had no interest in those allotments. In cioss examination witness said lots 87 and 88 belonged to his lata 'wife. Had never seen the late roll, so could not have objected. He was a shaaeholder in the company. Mr O'Neill submitted that judgment must go for the defendant, or the plaintiff must be nonsuited on the strength of the objections he had raised. His Honour said, concerning the first objection, he would consider whether it was possible to cairy the proceedings of the old court into tiie new one. He doubted very much whether lie could. Mr O'Neill said defendant had sold lot 8(5 in Maich, 1883, oud it would not be just to late him for last year. He knew of no law to compel people to give notice to the local bodies when the sold land, though such notice was often given. The valuator was paid for his service, and it was his duty to make proper rolls. His Honour said he did not see how they were going to get over section 7 of the act. Mr O'Neill said section 8 provided that the roll shall be assumed |o be correct until the coi liwry is proved. His Honour did not think section 7 was controlled by section 8. The proper course to be followed by those who felt aggrieved was to appeal to the Property Commissioner. Mr O'Neill could not think that it was intended to sue people who did not own property. Persons might be put on the roll unknown to themselves, and they would have no opportunity of objecting. Capt. McPherson said it was very probable that the particulars in the valuation roll had been taken from Mr Lamb's own statement. He had heard it stated in that court that when a man, who is assessed for certain property, took no objection, the presumption was that he was satisfied. His Honour said he would look up the legal points and give judgment in the morning. In Re William CuMMiNO.--Mr O'Neill asked his Honour if he would give his decision which he reserved in this case. The debtor had been before Judge Gillies and had failed to get his discharge, and unless his Honour could do something the bankrupt would have to get his* discharge by effluxion of time. It was a case of great hardship. His Honour admitted that it was a case of hardship, but he could do nothing. It was out of his jurisdiction. The old court had ceased to exist, and there was no provision for keeping the proceedings alive from the old court to the new. Several similar cases had occurred at the Thames. Mr O'Neill wished his Honour would suggest some way out of the difficulty. His Honour could think of no remedy but an Act of Parliament. The matter then dropped, and the court ] rose.

Messrs Gilby and Richardson, stationers, tobacconists and Commission Agents, Cambridge, have dissolved partnership a* from the. ;eth