RESIDENT MEGISTRATE' COURT. Tuesday.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3401, 10 June 1868, Page 4

RESIDENT MEGISTRATE' COURT. Tuesday.

[Before J. Babik and J. H. Horwi, Eiii.,J.P.i.] , i NOKPAXHENT 07 CITY BATES. ; The following case* of alleged nonpayment of oity ! rates were heard. ' ■ John Kirkwood, £31 15s, 5d., property situate in i Queen-street, High-street,: 'and Vulcan-lane. ' ' Mr. ' Diddamt, > collector to the City jßosrd, deposed that the defendant's' name fwas in the rate-book' , under the head, of Graham: and Company. By Mr. Gillies: Mr.* Kirkwood'i name was not 'individually entered in the rate-book. Could not? \ swear positively that he was a [partner in the firm. Believed he was. Could not prove it. The entry for Vulcan-lane was against D. Graham,,. Could not swear that D. Graham was a partner in the firm. Believed he was. ' • < John Kirkwood, examined by Mr. Gillies : lam not, and never have been, a partner in the firm of D. Graham and Co. It consisted of D. Graham and John Graham. My name has never been printed up in connection with the firm oi D. Graham and Co. Mr. Gillies submitted that the oase must be dismissed on the gronn'ds shown in cross-examination. The Bench dismissed the summons.!, • - • It. Gwynne and .Richard Gardner,- , trustees of jB. Newell, £22 10a., property in Queen-street.' J. W. Diddams, collector, cross-examined': The rate was originally made- against I. K. Yialou. .Be was then the occupier of the premises, and Messrs.. Gwynne and. Gardner were the' owners. The entry was altered. It was the same as it. is now on the 10th January last. Icannot tell the date-; when the alteration, was first made. ; At the- time the alteration was made .the usual notice under the. 49th clause was given to Messrs. .Gwynne and Gardner personally. The alteration is not signed' by any members of the Board. 1 The original entry was signed. Mr. Gillies : When Mr.- Diddams has done I wish to give a little -bit of evidence myself. Mr. Gillies then asceuded the Witness box, and was sworn. Mr. 1 Diddams : I beg to submit to the Bench whether a solicitor,conducting bis own oase, can give evidence in it. Mr. Home : Yes, he oan give evidence. Mr. Gillies : I wish to state to the Court that on the 15th January last, at. Mr. Grwynne's request, I inspected, in the City. .Board_oflßicp, the rate-book now produced. It was at that time that he reoeived this notice. Onthat<date, the 13th June, no alteration had (been made in the rate-book :,it then stood I. R. Vialou, and must have been altered since tha^ time. I made a special note of the fact at the time. Mr. Diddams : Can you say that; that' is the first notice' that hat been furnished to Mr.Gwynne ? ' ' Mr. Gillies ; No, I cannot say anything about that; I oannot say whether it is the first notice or not. ~ Mr. Diddams : 'Then I think that, with regard to the rate, it has nothing to do with the entry there. Richard Gwynne, examined by Mr. Gillies, depo«ed: The occupier on the 29th of January, 1867, was Mr. Vialou. I was at no timer the occupier between the Ist of June and the 20th of November, 1867, nor was my co defendant. (Notice produced.) That was the first notice I received as to my being rated for the premises. ' I have never received any, other notice' of an alteration in the rate-book. Mr.' | Diddams once ,called'up6k me and asked me if Iwaj /

go ng to pay the rate, but that was in a friendly ' way. By Mr. Diddaras ; The first time I knew that I was liable to a rate was when you called and handed me that. Mr. Gillies pointed out that, under the 39fch clause, the rate should be levied upon occupiers of the premises, and there was no other clause enabling the Board to levy a rate upon the oocupier except in the case of a £15 rental. Alterations should be made »t the instance of the Board, and seven days' notice of any alteration should be given, so as to give the aggrieved party time to appeal. In this c**e it appeared that the alteration had been made by the collector himself, ao ting on bis own* discretion, and that no notice' had been given. The Benoh said the required notice would hare to be given, and the oase could be brought on again. The oase would have to be dismissed. ' Mr. Gillies : Might I ask the Benoh to give tome expression of opinion in order to guide the collector as to the state of the Act with regard to occupiers ? I find no power in the Act to make an owner liable who is not an occupier. , The Bench expressed no opinion on the point alluded to. George Rowley, £3 16a. Defendant did not appear, and oonstable Wills having proved the lervice of the summons, and the collector haying proved the account, judgment was given for plaintiff. This oonoluded the business.