NEW ZEALAND APPEAL CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 67, 20 March 1907, Page 8

NEW ZEALAND APPEAL CASE.

GOVERNMENT VALUATIONS. SVARD BROTHERS, v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, Bth February. On Tuesday in this week the case of Ward Brothers versus Lhe AttorneyGeneral of New Zealand came befoie the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judges present wero : The Lord 'Chancellar, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Davey, and Sir Arthur Wilson. Mr. E. G. Jellicoe appeared for the appellants ; Mr. George Lawrence represented the respondent. It was stated that the applicants are the lessees of a block of land of 84 acres in the Hutt district. The lease began in 1897. In 1904, seven years of the term unexpired, the rent was £150 a year, and tho lessees, who were liable for all rates and taxes, as wril as land tax on the value of their leasehold interest, were prohibited from using the land otherwise than for farming purposes. One mode of levying taxation in New Zealand in 1904, under various valuation Acts, was by taxing unimproved values. The valuation roll thus established was tho standard from which the rolls of all local authorities having rating powers were framed. In 1904 tho appellants' land was assessed at £11,320— a value which had been fixed by tho ValuerGeneral without reference to tho coi»ijtions of their lease, but, it was alleged, solely upon the price which it was assumed the land might fetch if cut ip for building purposes, on a basis oi what neighbouring lands bad reahseJ during an exceptional land boom in the colony. The appellants objected to the valuation, and tho Assessment Court reduced it to £6720, or £B0 per acre. Later in the same year tho Valuer-General, claiming to act under section 30 of the Government Valuation of Land Act Amendment Act, 1900, which is made applicable to valuations under the Government "Valuation of Land Act, 1896, increased the assessment of the unimproved value of the appellants' land to £110 per acre, and fixed the value of the improvements at £400, so that for 'land that could be used only for farming purposes under tho appellants' lease, the appellants were compelled to pay for local rates and land tax a sum that was equivalent to a tax of at least 15s in the £ upon their actual rental, and the appellants' landlords wore assessed at £7400 unimproved value, and their land tax would be about £30, or onefifth of their rent, or 4s in the £, as an income tax. This was done without notice to the appellants, without any opportunity of objection on their part, and without their being heard. No appeal was provided by law from this action of the Valuer-General. The appellants applied to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a certiorari calling upon the Valuer-General to return into the court the assessment in question ; bnt the Supreme Court decided that they, had no power to entertain -f-he application. The appellants obtained, ex parte, special leave to appeal to the Privy' Council from that judgment, contending that the Supreme Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the application, and that the valuation was made without authority of law or in excess of the Valuer-Gene-ral's aifuthority under the various Valua.- , tion Acts 'During the argument some of the fiscal legislation of New Zealand came in for some severe strictures in the ' Privy Council appeal, llr. Jellicce naturally said many hard things about it, and observed that it was pitiful to see the counsel for the New Zealand Government trying to find something to urge in its justification. From some of their remarks the four judges appeared to be evenly divided. Lord Davey and Sir A. ."Wilson seemed to hold that the appeal was not in respect cf any act of a colonial officer, but against tho piovisions of the Government \ uluation Act itself ; in wiiich case the Privy Council had no power of review. The other two judges appeared to think that the case was open to review by the Supreme Court as involving a personal act of, the ValuerGeneral, and not the automatic operation of a statute. There being this difference of opinion, the only alternative was to confirm the judgment of the appeal because the four judges were * divided. But, presumably for that reason, they j refused to give any costs to the New Zealand Government. They decided that the judgment of the court below must be confirmed, but -refused to make any Older as to costs. Air. Lawrence, counsel for tho New Zealand Government, pressed for costs, but tho Lord Chancellor (Lord Loreburn) replied significantly : "You have got your assessment, but you will get nothing more from us." in arguing the case for the appellants, Mr. Jellicoe said that every 'person who did not agree with the political views of the New Zealand Government was liable to be ruined and to have his property confiscated. Any man living in a country district and hostilo to the Government, might object to the assessment oi his property by the Valuer-General, might appeal and succeed, then the Valuer-General might override the Assessment Court by giving a notice that, the Government required to take the land for settlement purposes unless the owner a,greed to increase the valuation to any sum he pleased to fix. There was no appeal against the valuation so imposed, and the man might bo ruined, all because he had perhaps found himself in opposition to the Government of the day. Counsel contended that the action of the Valuer-General could be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and that the At-torney-General had jurisdiction to review the decision. He maintained that the act of the Valuer-lxeneral in making this valuation was a judicial act ana not an administrative one, and on the assumption that' he had power to do 'so, urged ho would be guilty of excess of jurisdiction in taxing this property in respect of its speculative value. Ho hnd to take the value of the property as it was, and not its speculative value. It could not bo said that because a man had a property of fifty or sixty acres, he was bound to be taxed upon the basis of the probability of his cutting it up in ihe future for building sites. Valuation was as a property stood at the time, and not what it might be worth a year hence. On the other side, counsel for the Government contended, first of all, that the Attorney-General was not tho proper person to have been put in court as representing the Government; the ValuerGeneral was the proper person, thereforo that the proper authorities wero not before this court at all. This objection, howover, was not sustained. Tho Lord Chancellor said their Lordships did not see any reason to disturb the judgment of the Supremo Court, und they were unablo to aclviso his Majesty to allow the appeal. There would bo no order as to costs.

Dr. James Reid, M.A., M.8., Ch.B.. will have charge of Dr. Muckin's practice during th* latCer's absence in Europe, Dr. Reid has practised largely in England and Dublin, and for tho last seven monthfl acted w locum, tenens for Dr. Roberts, of Cambridge. Mes«r«. Sidey Mcecb, and Co. advortiso for privato tola tho nnold sections of tho fir?t imbdivinion of the "Famous Fairviow Estate," Karori. To-morrow, at their rooms, Manners-street, commencing at 2 p.m., Mosul's). Sidoy, Mooch, and Co. will soil household furniture, bicycle iicccnorion, etc. Mesin. Richardson Bros., comploto , homo furnitheri, 115, Upper Cuba-strcot, > insert a liat of good* at title prjcei,