RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 8169, 28 April 1888, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, April 27. {Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.) M. Pearce v. F. G. Laing.—Claim £4 Is, rate» alleged to bo due.—ln this previously heard case his Worship gavejudgment as follows :— The plaintiff, being the collector for the Borough ■ of Caversham, sues for rates (£3 3s), payable on the 12th May, aud ISs, payable on the 12th November 1887. The defendant leased the land to Clarke in November ISSI, for a term of years. Clarke in November 1883 mortgaged his term to Pierpoint, and in February 1885 Pierpoint, who was then ia possession aB mortgagee, let tbe property to Lamb for a term of six months, and so on from six months to six months. Lamb continued. t* occupy till the end of December 18S7, and from that time defendant has been in possession as owner. Ifc seems to me tbat undoubtedly Lamb was tho occupier within tho meaning of " The Rating Act 1876," when these rates were made and became due, and, therefore, was primnrily liable to pay. Now, section 53. " Bating Act 1876," provides that ahy rate due by an occupier aud unpaid for threo months after demand may be recovered from the owner if demanded from him within four months after the samo has become due, provided proceedings are taken against him within six months after tho same has become due. Assuming that the defendant is owner within the meaning of the act, which is, however, a point in dispute, there seems to me to be reasons why plaintiff cannot recover either rate. Tho first reason is, that to make an owner liable in default of an occupier primarily liable there must have been a demand first made upon tho occupier. Sectiou 53 reads: " Auy rate due by an occupier and unpaid for three months after demand may be recovered from the owner," Ac. The demand of the rate from tho occupier and his omission to pay It for threo months are conditions precedent to a right to recover from tho owner. Thero is no evidence of any demand made to the occupier, and it is clear tbat, as a matter of fact, none would be made, becauso his name does not appear in the rate book. There is another reason which bars recovery from the owner of the rate due in May 18S7, anil that is i that section 53 provides that proceediugs to recover a rate from the owner in default of an occupier must be taken within six months after the rate becomes due, and that period expired long before this action was commenced. Judgment for defendant, with costs (233 Od).