PROPERTY-TAX RETURNS.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 26, 1 February 1887, Page 3

PROPERTY-TAX RETURNS.

Omitting to SupnlySUaomonts.

I'kocbkdinus wcro taken at tho i'olica Court to-day against soi oral porsons for failing to furnidh the returns provided for by the Act. Tho first case cnllod was that of William Henry Smith and Andrew Clarke Caughoy, who wove chavgod with failing and neglecting to furnish a statement of their proporty undor the Property Aeso?emont Act. Mr Buddlo appenrod foi tho informant, and Mr Kigby for the defendants, who ploadcd not guilty, Mr f>uddlo asked permission to amend the summons with the object of describing the property referred to as that of tho firm of Smith and Caughey. Mr Rigby opposod «uch a radical alteration in the summons. It was not a more clerical ono.

Mr Buddlo said tho orror was a clerical one, mn<io by tho clork in preparing the eummons.

Mr Kigby said that under thoso circumstances he would not object to the amend client.

Mr Buddlo explained the nature of the law relating to tho furnishing of returns, and said thoy did not seek a vory heavy ponalty, but at tho same timo they wished for a fine that would show people how imperative it was that thay should comply with the law. Tho Ant provided for anno of not less than £5 and not excoeding £100, and a forfeiture of a Bum equal to treblo the amsunt of the tax as well as the tax itself.

Mr Cronibio, the officer appointed to lay information, was called, and deposed to tho liability of defendants and their neglect to furnish returns.

William Williams Ludbrook, clork in chargo of tho statements of property, doposed to eondinjj; a notico of non-compliance with tho Act to Smith and Cnughoy.

Mrßigby admitted-the neglect to supply tho return, but denied that tho omission was wilful.

Andrew Clarko Cnughey deposed that his \iartnor, Mr Smith, proceeded to England on bufinoss in the earlier part of last year, and they were kopt very busy for a time in cjnsequence. Mr Smith had, in provious yoars, filled iv and forwarded tho property-tax roturne, and when he wont nway witness was under tho impression that ho had attended to it. Ho was not awaro that tho roturn had not been furnished until eight days ago, when he received Mr Crombio's note. He got a notice from the Proporty-tax Department, nnd considering that it was not important, or had reference to something to be done in tho future, nnd having a ehoaf of correspondence to attend to, ho did not open it. Ho novor had any intention to ovado payment of tho tax.

William Henry Smith also gave evidonco fur tho dofence.

Tho Bench imposed a fine of £5 and costs.

Jninoß Knox, representing the Devouport and Luke Tramway Company, pleaded not guilty to a charge sguinst the Company of failing to appoint, a public officer as provided for in the Property Assessment Act. U. M. Crombio waa called, and stated that the Company had nut appointed a public ollicer, n* provided by the Act. Mr Knox paid he was not proparcd to argue the case. Ho expoctod that, under the circumstances, Mr Crombio would have withdrawn the case, lie atked far an adjournment, in cidor that tho case might bo defended.

Tho Bench, however, thought it waa too late to adjourn the case when it hud partially been heard. Mr Knox was culled by Mr Buddie, and paid ho was manager of the Company, and E. W. Cave was Socrotary. Mr Knox proceeded to say that a public officer had boon appointed, and the authorities at Wellington wero notified accordingly. (Mr Buddie : — That was under the Companies Act ) They had no notice from the Property Tax office to appoint an officer. Mr Cave told him that no p.uch notice had been sorvod on him.

Mr Crombie said several notices had been scut from hia office to tho Company, and'no notice had been paid to them. Mr Cave subsequently appeared to verify Mr Knox's c-tatementß.

A fine of £5 was inflicted.

Adam Cairns was fined £10 and costs, and Edward Ellingham and Frank Jaggnr £0 and coats each, for failing to aend in property-tax returns. A charge against William Georgo Allon was adjourned.