LOCAL AND GENERAL

Evening Star, Issue 20608, 7 October 1930, Page 1

LOCAL AND GENERAL

Overdue rates, and the penalty thereon, took up a good deal of time at the meeting of the Taieri River Trust yesterday. The audit inspector (Dunedin)* pointed out that the trust was Tinder a legal duty to collect the whole of its revenues, and could not remit or refund any part of it except in pursuance of express statutory authority. It was resolved to reply stating that the trust was doing its best at present to collect the rates that'were outstanding. Also the secretary reported regarding the collection of rates. It was decided that the action of the clerk in giving time in certain cases regarding the collection of arrears of,rates should bo confirmed, and that he be instructed to take proceedings against all those ratepayers who did not reply to the trust in connection with this matter or obtain terms for payment.

In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., John M'Grath (Oamaru); ' proceeded against Morris Jones (Seacliff) on a claim for £142 7s Bd, an amount stated to have been lent to the defendant by the plaintiff on or about October 24, 1924.—The plaintiff also claimed a further sum of £23, alleged to have been lent by him to the defend- ■ ant on or about November 10, 1924. — Mr A. C. Stephens appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Rufiell for the defendant.—ln evidence, the plaintiff said that he had given up ,a position in Christchurch and had,_ with his wife, gone to Seacliff to assist in a business owned by his mother and the defendant, who was his step-father. It was whilst he was living at Seacliff that he had lent the defendant the money, and although ho had asked for repayment of the amount on several occasions he had not received it. He did not consider that the money was a payment into the capital of the business.— 1 It was maintained for the defence that the first sum had not been lent by the plaintiff but that it was a payment towards the capital of the business. The £23 was a payment of moneys collected by the plaintiff from the business into the defendant’s account. —His Worship said that it was quite clear that both payments were in the nature of a loan. Judgment would therefore be given for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs (£3 10s) and solidtor’s fee (£9 ss).