WATER CUT OFF.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 234, 3 October 1932, Page 9

WATER CUT OFF.

ONE TREE HILL ACTION. CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. STATE ADVANCES CLAIM. NON-PAYMENT OF RATES. . (By Telegraph.—rress Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. The Court of Appeal is to-day hearing the appeal State Advances Superintendent v. the Auckland City Council and One Tree Hill Borough Council. An originating summons was issued by the State Advances Superintendent naming \ the Mayor, councillors and citizens of the city of Auckland and the Mayor, councillors and burgesses of the borough of One Tree Hill as defendants, and. removed into the Court of Appeal for argument. . ... The statement of facts annexed to the summons sets out that plaintiff, being the mortgagee of certain properties in Auckland, pursuant to powers conferred 011 him by the mortgages and upon default being made by certain mortgagors, let certain of such properties and received rents therefore In Jlay, 1932, the defendant corporations disconnected from their water works certain properties in both boroughs of which plaintiff was in possession and refused to supply further water to the properties, alleging as a reason that certain water rates in respect of the said properties had not been paid. -1 As .regards the city of Auckland, it was subsequently arranged that the said properties should be reconnected on plaintiff agreeing to pay the reconnection: fees and ordinary water rates as from the date of his taking possession, and the questi6n of right to insist on the payment of arrears to be determine'! by - the Court. The borough of One 'Tree Hill refused "to agree to supply water to" these properties or allow plaintiff to carry out feconnection with the tsame unless 'he paid; all the water rates-in arrears that were payable by the original mortgagors and a reconneetion fee of .10/. • The above dispute has- arisen in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal given early in 1931 .iii the case of the King v. the Mayor of Inglewood, where Vit was held that after the sale by the /Crown of mortgage land, a council could not enforce judgment for rates in respect of Which rates were in arrear, to satisfy rates made after the. C.i;o>yn, acquired its, charge. The originating summons asks- . for determination of : the following qties- „ tioas:— *.; :■ ', : (1) Whether defendants arc entitled to refuse to supply water to properties of whichc the plaintiff is mortgagee and whicfc he leased,, unless the arrears of rates due in respect of the supply' of water to the mortgagors" of such proper- : ties;are previously paid.' */*,"•. (2) Whethet .when plaintiff- has let a mortgaged property which is already ~ connected with., the .water supply, but -.aM. respect, of ..which .there.-.are arrears of water rates, defendants are. entitled to disconnect thq water supply although pl&iptiff is willing to .pay . ordinary water /rates.. .7 • "■} v ' ■' (3) Is'plaintiff liable to pay a fair and'reasonable charge, for the supply of water under the circumstances; set out in the statement of facts? Argument is proceeding.