Tuesday, October 16. The Court opened at 10 o'clock. COSTS.
Mr. Justice Johnston said that with regard to costs in case* reserved by the Judge by consent, the Court was of opinion that unless there had been some agreement made between the parties in the Court below, and that some reason was put forth to justify the Court in using ita discretion, the costs should follow the result. SINCLAIR V. BAGOK. This was an appeal from the decision of -the Judge of the District Court at Picton, in suit brought in June last, by John Bagge, as Clerk of the Board of Works, for the town of Blenheim, against James Sinclair, of the town of Blenheim, a merchant, to recover the sum of £92 9a. 3d., amount of rates levied upon the lands of the defendant in Blenheim, by the Board of Works, under an assessment made the 17th November, 1865. For the plaintiff below it was said that the Board of five members was appointed under the Blenheim Improvement Act ; that they had power under the 13th section to levy rates upon lands within the town; that the 14th section provided that the Board, or three members of it, should appoint assessors ; that three members of the Board had appointed the other two members assessors without payment ; that the assessment had been made in proper form, and had been open to be appealed against before Justices under the 16th section of the Act ; and that the defendant did not appeal. For the defendant it was said that the assessors, being members of the Board, were not proper persons to make the assessment, and that the 16th section of the Act was in violation of the 19th section of the Constitution Act, which prohibits local authorities from establishing new courts of judicature. The District Court Judge, in giving judgment, said that whether the sixteenth clause of the Act was ultra vires or not, the Court to whom the appeal lay was formed prior to the passing of the Act, and that it was one thing to create a new Court and another to give additional jurisdiction to a Court already created. He then gave judgment for plaintiff, and defendant gave notice of appeal. The following were the questions for the Court of appeal : — Is the appointment of two of the members of the Board, as assessors, a valid exercise of the powers of appointment under the Act ? Is the Blenheim Improvement Act, 1864, repugnant to an Act passed in the fifteenth and sixteenth years of the teign of her Majesty entitled an Act to grant a Representative Constitution to the Colony of New Zealand, and if so is the Blenheim Improvement Act void ? If the said Act i« not void, is the assessment, as amended by the Justices, or Court of Appeal, a valid and legal assessment a« against the defendant? Mr. Hart for appellant ; Mr. Izard for respondent. Mr. Hart addressed the Court, and Mr. Izard was partly heard, after which the Court adjourned.
Permanent link to this item
Tuesday, October 16. The Court opened at 10 o'clock. COSTS., Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2891, 31 October 1866
Tuesday, October 16. The Court opened at 10 o'clock. COSTS. Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2891, 31 October 1866
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.