WOOLSTON DRAINAGE RATE.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7329, 6 June 1889, Page 3

WOOLSTON DRAINAGE RATE.

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

The question of the legality of the rates levied by the Drainage Board in th* Heathcote District, and the amalgamation of the Woolston District with the* Heathp cote District was brought before his' Honor Mr Justice Denniston, yesterday, as; under:— < YORK (APPELLANT) V DISTRICT DRAINAGE;. BOARD (RESPONDENT). | The appellant in this case was Thomasf York, ol Woolston, and the respondents; the Christchurch District Drainage Board, J ] and the appeal was against the drainages rate. \ Mr Kippenberger for the appellant, Mrj Fisher for the respondents. | \ Mr Kippenberger opened the case, and,; said Chat under tbe tbe duty| was cast upon the Board of'making anal levying a rate. It would be provedi that the Drainage Board created af sewage district comprising the city? of Christchurch and the suburban 5 district. Under section 50 of the Act, the* rate was to be. levied equally on bothi districts, but this would act harshly on 'the outside districts, who did not reap the ■ benefit of the work, so that the private j Ait of 1837 was passed, which provided; mat the Board should before levying the; rate, make an estimate of the expendi-1 ture to be incurred for the benefit of I the various parts of the district, the •city, suburban, and rural districts, and .{ son that estimate the rate was to be jstruck. In 1882 the town districts of ', JWbolston and Linwood were created under %he Towns Districts Act, 1881, and on 18th ; {January, 1883, the Board of its own motion ; a resolution to rate these two town: (districts separately. Afterwards the Board * •treated these as separate districts under |the Act of 1877. They were rated separately, had separate rate books, &c Mr Hopkins wrote to the Board in 1883, complaining of the rate levied in Woolston, stating that the Woolston Town Board >• would do the work for £8, which was consi- ; derably less than the rate. Immediately -. after this the Board passed a resolution amalgamating the districts again, and a number of districts, except Heathcote, complained. On February Ist, 1889, notice of motion was given to rescind six out of the nine rural districts which bad been ? formed, and to form three new rural dls- ' trusts. This was passed by the Board at a subsequent meeting, and after that at a special meeting the Board passed a resolu- ! tion to make a rate, which was now , appealed against. This rate was made ■. by special order under the Act. The order having been made the rate was made under the Act of 1875, and the appellant j alleged that the Board had acted illegally g in abolishing the district of Woolston, amal- | oratnating the districts, and further that j the estimate stated to be made was not so I made, as provided by the Act, before the I rate, he contended, was made—the rate ] was also made in contravention of sec- \ tions 51 and 52 of the Act. The effect of 1 the abolition of theWoolston district and its | amalgamation with Heathcote had the | effect of raising the percentage of rates | on the Woolston ratepayers by some 200 or | 250 per cent. The appellant also com- \ plained that the Board carried out this \ amalgamation to thwart the just com- s plaint of the Woolston ratepayers, not be- \ cause It was for the general benefit of the district, but in view of a line of policy laid down by the Board. His. Honor questioned whether Mr Kippenberger could go into the motives of the Board. Mr Kippenberger contended that he could, as the power was given to the Board to exercise for the. benefit of others. The appellant had therefore no other course open to him but to appeal against the rate, which he had done. The appeal, \ he might say, was made in accordance 5 with sec. 62 of the Drainage Ace of 1875. \ The reasons of the appeal were as U under: — I"

(1). "On the 15th day of January, 1883, the said Board under the authority of the Christchurch Districts Drainage Act, 1885 Amendment Act, 1887, created and defined the boundaries of the two several districts of rural Woolston and rural Linwood, and the boundaries of the said several rural districts were identical with the boundaries of the town districts of Woolston and Ltinwood respectively. (2). Co-existent with the said several rural districts and contiguous to the same, there was the district of rural Heathcote also defined under the said last-mentioned Act. (3). On or about the 12th day of February, 1889, the said Board passed a resolution to abolish the said several districts of rural Woolston, rural Linwood, and rural . Heathcote, and the said Board by resolution of the said 12th day of February, 1889, .defined the district of rural Heathcote, "comprising the area formerly constituting |-tae three several rural districts first 'mentioned. (4). That the action of the : said Board in abolishing and amalgamat§ng the said three first-mentioned rural listricts as aforesaid is illegal. (5). That he said Board did not before making the rsaid rate make the estimate as to the said f three several original rural districts resquired by section 2 of the said Amendment [Act, 1877, (6). That such estimate as was [made by the said Board before making the I said rate is not made as required by the said section 2 t of Ithe said Amending Act. (7). That the said Board in proposing the abolition as 'aforesaid of the said three original rural districts acted arbitrarily without exercising an honest discretion according to the meaning and intent of the said Amending Act of 1877. (8). That the rate made by the said Board on the \ rateable property of the appellant is excessive and illegal. (9). That the said rate was struck on the 10th day of April, 1889, for the period commencing on the 12th day of March, 1889, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1889. (10). That the said rate was made payable by the said Board in one sum on a date to be fixed by tbe local bodies making or collecting the same respectively. (11). That the said Board did not make the estimate required under the said section 2 of the Amending Act, 1887, as to the alleged district of rural Heathcote as defined by I the Board's resolution of the 12th day of February, 1889." j The learned counsel was proceeding to ' read certain affidavits, when ? Mr Fisher objected to his learned friend I using affidavits in the case. I After argument, his Honor deferred j consideration of the matter, and the Court t adjourned until 11 a. m. to-day.