R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU. Wednesday.—(Before Messrs Bockett, Hutchmson and Goodfellow, J.P.)

Waikato Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2068, 8 October 1885, Page 2

R.M. COURT, TE AWAMUTU. Wednesday.— (Before Messrs Bockett, Hutchmson and Goodfellow, J.P.)

Wai pa Counts Council, in X. T. M \rsdkb, Y. W. A. Cow \s. —Arrears of rates, £4 IV lOcUd.—Mi L. O'Neill for plaintiff, and Mi W. M. Hay for defendant. Plaintiff having been sworn, deposed to being the legally appointed collector for the council. He produced the rate-book, and lead out the amount claimed fiom defendant. Witness ".wore to having made the demand in accordance with the act. Counsel for the defence '•aid there was no proof of the demand hiu ing been so made. He quoted several authorities to prove tint evidence from memory of tho contents of a written document was not adunssable. He contended that notice to prodnco nuch demand had not been served on defendant as it should have been. William Junes, sworn, deposed to having been collector foi the Wai pa County Council for the year ending 31st March, 1884. (Appointment pioduced.) Witness deposed to na\ ing made a demand on the defendant for rates for that year. Counsel for phuntiff contended that lethal demand had been made, and that it rested with defendant to prove to the contrary. Counsel for defendant quoted the appeal case. " Walton Park Coal Company v. Taieri County Council,' and read Justice Williams judgment in support of his contention that no proper demand had been made. Counsel for plaintiff said tint the case quoted was not a parallel case. In that case the demand was bad, and the appellants knew it was bud ; they therefore produced it and gained tho case. The appellants were only occupiers of a portion of the property for which rates were demanded, and the demand on that account as well as for the fact that no time for which the i ate was due, wan specified, was bad, for they were sued for rates for the whole property while they only rented a portion from the owner. After counsel had addressed the bench, judgment was given for plaintiff for full amount and costs. As there were other case*, costs were to bo divided among them. Svmr v. (iKOUfiK Rvmhay, arrears of rates £2 (is 3s. Counsel allowed this case to go without argument as it was a parallel case with the former one, but gave notice of appeal. S\MK v. R: Clnninghim.—Claim, £4 Us lOd. In this case it appears the Property Tax Commissioner in »de a mistake in the valuation roll and placed R. Cunningham against the property of J. Cunningham and vice versa. Tho latebook was a true copy of this roll. Defendant was seived with a demand and paid the amount, but it was afterw.uds discovered that a mistake had been made, and he was billed for the correct amount, which was greater than the amount demanded un'lcr Mr Sperry's roll. Defendant did not dispute the amount of current rate, £2 14s 2d, but disputed the arrears. Mr Hay said the notice of demand was bad, as no description of property was stated, as required by the Act. and that defendant frequently tendered the amount to plaintiff. This statement counsel for plaintiff said his client denied. Counsel agreed to rest the case on the notice of demand. Judgment for plaintiff for £J 14s 2d and COsts. The costs as divided wpro--W. A. Cowan, £1 18s Id; G. liim-My, fc2 12, 7d; R. Cunningham. 11 Kis Id. Coun.sol obtained leave to appeal in the case of G. Ram-ay.