SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14512, 19 December 1912, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

0 . IN BANCO. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston). GILBERT AND ANOTHER, v X \IKOURA COUNTY COUNCIL. Tliis was a special case (following upon a writ) stated by counsel for the opinion of the Court. The plaintilfs were Jonathan Gilbert and Louis J. Payne, sheep-farmers, and the defendants were the chairman, councillors, and inhabitants of tlio County of Kaikoura. Tho plaintiffs are, and wore during the year commencing on tlie Ist day of April. 1911. and ending on the *3lst day of March, 191:2, the holders respectively of certain niiall grazing runs, being pastoral lands of the Crown, held tinder lease from the Crown under the provisions of the Land Act. and situated within the County of Kaikoura. The plaintiffs sued on * behalf of themselves and of all other holders of pastoral lands, of the Crown held under lease or license within the county. The system of rating property on its capital value is in force in the county, and was so during the year mentioned, and also previously thereto. Prior to the passing on the 3rd December, 1910, of tho Rating Amendment Act. 1910, all pastoral lands of the Crown held under lease or license in the county had under paragraph (c) of the definition of "saleable value," in section 2 of the Rating Act, 1908, been rated on the sum which invested at G per cent, per annum would produce a yearly income equal to the rent paid therefore by the tenant or licensee thereof to the Crown, Land Board, or other public officer or body. In tho valuation rolls supplied by the ValuerGeneral to the Kaikoura County Council, prior to tho passing of tho said Act of 1910, tho capital values of pastoral lands of the Crown held under lease or license were shown in the same way as in tho case of other lands, hut in tho case of such pastoral lands thero was shown also in each case in red ink as tho rateable value thereof the sum mentioned. Subsection (2) of section 22 of the said Act of 1910 repealed paragraph (c) of the definition of "rateable value in section 2 of the Rating Act, 1908, and in the valuation roll supplied by the Valuer-General to tho Council for the purposes of the year mentioned, that was the year ending 31st March, 1912, the* capital values only of all such pastoral lands as aforesaid -were shown as in the case of other lands. The Council, in the year 1911. with a view to niakin_ a general rato of one penny in tho pound for the Deriod of the year mentioned upon the rateable value of the rateable property "within the county, directed particulars of tho said rate to bo transcribed in a rate-book as reouired by section 49 of the Rating Act 1908. Tho County Clerk, not being aware of tho repeal, and supposing that the sums inserted in red ink in previous valuation rolls as the rateable values of such, pastoral lands as aforesaid, had been accidentally omitted from the valuation roll for the year 1911-1912 caused to bo entered in the said rate-book as tho rateable values of all such pastoral lands as aforesaid, tho values which had appeared in the valuation roll for the year prior to the passing of the Act of 1910, that is to say, the sums which invested at £G per cent, per annum would produce a yearly income equal to tho respective rents paid therefore by tho respective tenants or licensees thereof to the Crown, Land Board, or other public .officer or body, as had been done in the ease of the ratebooks for previous years. No alteration was mado in the valuation roll, and the rate-book so prepared, therefore, differed from tho valuation roll. The said rate-book was signed by two members of tho Council, and before tho making of tho said rate tho Council gavo public notice of its intention to make the same and the said ratebook was open for inspection by all ratepayers as required by Sees. 50 and 51 of the Rating Act, 1908, but no ratepayers, nor in fact any persons, inspected tho said rate-book. No appeal of any sort' or kind was made to tho Council against tlie said rate-book by any ratopay-or on any grounds -whatsoever. The said rato -was made by tho Council without any alteration having been made in the rateable values of such pastoral lands as aforesaid, or any of thorn entered in tho said rate-book as aforesaid. Demand in writing for the said amount calculated upon tlie rateable values so entered in the said rate-book was mado on bl-half of the Council, and delivered to tho persons liablo for the said rate as required by Sec. 57 of the Rating Act, 1908, and its amendments. Tho Council, after sending out their demand, detectod the error -which had been n.vie by the clerk, and thereupon corrected such error by substituting in tho rate-book in tho case of all of such pastoral lands as aforesaid as tho rateable values thereof, tho capital values thereof, as appearing by the valuation roli mado under tho Valuation of Land Act, 1908, as supplied by the Valuer-General, in-' stead of the sums mentioned, and caused the said corrections to bo initialled by two members of the Council. No public or other notice was given to tho holders of leases or licenses of such pastoral lands as aforesaid or otherwise of the intention of the Council to alter the said rate-lwok in manner aforesaid or that the said rate-book as so altered' was open for inspection, nor was any opportunity given to the holders of such leases or licenses as aforesaid to object to the altered amounts inserted m the said rate-book as the rateable values of their properties, nor -were tho said alterations made upon any appeal by any ratepayer to the Council against tho said rate-book under See. 52 of tho Rating Act, 190 S. The Council after- • wards caused fresh demands in writing for tho said rate calculated upon tho said corrected rateable values to bo mado and delivered to all the lioxlers of leases or licenses of such pastoral lands as aforesaid, and was now so-ek-ing to levy the said rate upon and enforce payment thereof by them upon such substituted rateable" values. QUESTIONS FOR COURT. Tho questions for tho opinion of tho Court were: — (a) Had the Council, under the circumstances set forth in the special case, power.or lawful authority to alter the said rate-book in the manner set forth in the special case? (b) Had the Council power or law- > fill authority to make and deliver to | the holders of leases or licenses of such pastoral lands as aforesaid tho substitute! demands in writing mado by tho Council ? (c) Was the Council entitled to recover the said rato from the holders of such leases or licenses r.s aforesaid upon tiro substituted rateab o values inserted in the said rate-book? Mr Wright appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Blair for defendants. Mr Blair submitted that defendants could make any alterations at any time. Mr Wright submitted that the Council having once mado tho rate had no power to n~iend the rate after it was mado to rectify the error. They should have mado tho rate again proceeding de novo. Judgment was reserved.