THE CITY ASSESSMENT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1272, 16 April 1878, Page 3

THE CITY ASSESSMENT.

An adjourned sitting of the Assessment Court for Christchurch was held yesterday afternoon before G-. L. Mellish, Esq., Judge, for the purpose of hearing Dr. Foster, for the City Council, on the objections taken by the Council to certain valuations of property made by the assessor. On taking his seat on the Bench, the Judge said, he had been thinking over the matter about to be brought befor.3 him, and it had occurred to him, as, no doubt, it had to Dr. Foster, that it would be &i well to give all persons affected by the objections notice of the sitting of the Court, as possibly, and very probably, some might wish to be represented by counsel. He thought it would be well to give all an opportunity to appear, and thus have the whole question disposed of. Dr. Foster said he would not have the slightest objection to notice being given, but the fact was that the parties opposing the Council had shown no wish to appear by counsel. For his own part, he would rather be opposed by counsel than not. As it was, however, there would only be a loss of time if notice was given. Mr Mellish said he would not like to do anything which might seem like stealing a march on the persons affected. ' • : Dr. Foster would content himself with arguing his right fco appear. 1 Mr Hellish-assented to this, but would like to hear the other side. Py. Foster had seen Mr Oowlishaw that morning, and that gentleman had not the gjighjiest intension \o appear. ' Mr Mellish was under the impression that }&x Lflughnaa was engaged to appear on the other side. When the Court adjourned preyjoujily it was simply in order to have the wajiw wguei sfbetJw m the th«p wstegg

found there was a totally different condition of facte. Dr. Poster said that all he asked was whether the Court would hear him. If that was granted his present argument fell through; there would be no necessity for it. The first objection made to the action of the Council was that they had been wrong in point of form. To meet that there was the document he produced [a copy of a proclamation by the Governor validating the objections, notwithstanding errors of form]. It might be argued whether or not this proclamation could be acted upon, as it had been issued while the case was sub judice. The application ho was making was in some sort ex parte. Mr Mellish said he had not read the proclamation.

It was handed to him : after reading it he said that there was no mention in it of one very important point. Dr. Foster asked what that was.

Mr Mellish said it was as to whether or not copies of the objections had been left with the persons whose valuations were objected to. Dr. Foster said that that was a question of form.

Mr Mellish thought it rather a question of fact.

Dr. Foster said the real question in dispute was whether the notice given was in due form.

Mr Mellish said the Act provided that all objections shall be as near .as may be in the form in the 4th schedule. Dr. Foster said it was so. Mr Mellish said then tlie Act said that a copy of such objection shall be left with the person affected not less than seven clear days before the sitting of the Court. Dr. Foster said that was the point he was pi'epared to argue. He might here state that he was very happy to say he had to argue a position for which he was himself in no way responsible. Mr Mellish thought the Court might go a certain length at that sitting, but it could not deal completely with the matter. Dr. Foster did not ask the Court to accept a single objection, but only to decide upon his right to come there. There was no intention of making any distinction in the cases j they should all be treated alike.

Mr Mellish asked if the question as to whether or not a copj of the objection had been left with the objectee—the person objected to —was not a prominent one. Dr. Poster said that raised the question which he intended to bring forward—viz., whether the clause applied to these cases. Mr Mellish said it struck him that tl e proclamation did not deal with this matter at all. The Governor could validate only anything irregularly done in the matter of form. Then there was the question whether the objections were sent in as near as may be in the form of the 4th schedule. There was a most important provision in the Act as regarded the rights of the ratepayers to oppose the objections —viz., that a copy should be sent to them, or left with them. It was in evidence that in these cases no copies had been sent to them. Dr. Poster was of opinion that the clause did not mean that the copy sent should be a transcript of the objection sent to the Court. Mr Mellish said it was quite open to Dr. Foster to argue that point then. Dr. Foster, from the language of the Act, gathered that the copies sent to the ratepayer and to the Court need not be alike. Before the adjournment he had ventured to refer the Court to the practice in the matter of objections obtaining in England, and had said that he would there find authority for the course that had been taken. He had found cases to support his contention. Mr Mellish did not think the point a very strong one. What appeared to him to be absolutely necessary was that a copy of the objection in some form or other, however vague it might be, should be sent to the person affected.

Dr. Foster would give his view of the Act to the Bench, and the Bench could then say whether it was a tenable one. Learned counsel then quoted the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th clauses of the Rating Act. The 14th provided that the local body may object, but did not say in what manner. Mr Mellish said the manner was that provided by the Act. "Every objection shall be in writing under the hand of the objector, and shall be as near as may be in the form of the 4fch schedule, &c." Dr. Foster referred the Court to the 4th schedule. It would be found to apply to those objecting to the valuation of the local body, not to objections made by the local body. The words " that my name is omitted," for instance, could not apply to a local body. Mr Mellish considered the schedule to be given more with a view to the establishing of regularity in proceedings, so as to prevent there being all sorts of vague objections made.

Dr. Foster quoted the 17fch and 18Lh clauses of the Act. He had been of opinion that the word person could be interpreted to mean a corporation, and he believed the person who drafted the Act was under the impression that he had the benefit of the English Act, which says that person may be interpreted corporation.

Mr Mellish quoted from the 19th clause "the objector shall send to the person or persons so affected a copy of such objection," The Council would come under that. Dr. Foster contended that the Court had no power so to construe the words quoted. The Court would ask "Is the local body then not bound to give notice ? " The local body had to send their objections to the Court, and the public would have an opportunity of knowing this. Such a law might appear harsh, but was not more so than many others. In the Eegistration Courts at home objectors had to send to the officer and to the parties objected to, but in our legislation there was no such provision. In the revision of the electoral roll for instance, when a party claimed for the first time a right to be on the roll, any person might oppose him without having given notice. It was never contem plated, he supposed, that a local body would take upon itself the responsibility of objecting to the acts of its own officers. The City Council had, however, done so because the valuation in these cases had been so extremely low.

Mr Mellish said there was no doubt of that. Dr. Foster called attention to the Act distinguishing so decidedly between "person" and "local body." These were opposed to one another all through. Hence his contention that it was no part of the -Council's duty to send notices, though the Act prescribed that " persons " should-do so. He had more to say, but this was fundamental. He might fortify what he had already said by referring to the 27th clause, which said, " The Court shall hear and determine all objections delivered as above provided." The 16th and 19th clauses each spoke of "delivery," but ho took it that the word "delivered" in the 27th clause clearly meant the delivery at the Assessment Court as provided for in the 16Lh clause.

Mr Mellish asked if Dr. Foster drew a distinction between the delivery mentioned in the 16th and that mentioned in the 19th clause.

Dr. Foster said he did. In the 16th it applied to objections Bent to that Court, in the 19th it applied to objections sent to the parties, and that too only sent by a person outside the local body. Mr Mellish asked,—Did not the word person include i? corporation. Dr. Foster had been quite under the impression that it did till half an hour previous to his coming into Court. He had the Interpretation Act of 1858 with him, but the Eating Act was not affected by it. A clause interpreting "person" to mean "corporation " was one very often introduced into Acts, but there was no such clause in this Act, and they must abide by it as it stood, ■ Mr Mellish, having referred to' the Intarpretatiqn Acts, said that he did not remember exactly how the objections had been sent to the Court.

Dr. Foster said they had been sent by the Town Clerk.

Mr Mellish Baled if the Town Clerk had the authority of the Oounoil to send them. Dr. Foster replied that ho had. Mr Melligh was thinking whether or not the point might be raised that the Town Clerk had made the objections as a person, and not on behalf of the local body. Br- Fpgtey psmiuded t&fl oPU*fc tiW< $W

cause the Town Clerk had been asked the question, and had ami-med|jjthat he was authorised. This had not been necessary to be shown, because the Act says —" The local body may, by their chairman or clerk or other officer, &c, object." He had nothing to do, j therefore, but to call him and prove he was clerk, that, however, had been accepted all througb the proceedings. Mr Mellish wonld like to seethe text of the English Act to which Dr. Foster had alluded earlier, and which said that the word "peivon" could be interpreted " corporation." Had Dr. Foster a copy with him ? Dr. Foster had not, but thought he could refer to it. It was Sir John Romilly's Act. He was in doubt whether it applied to every case or only to particular cases. Mr Mell'ish thought it only reasonable to suppose that the intention of the Act was not to give the local body any advantage over a person whose rates they objected to, other than was possessed by a private individual. Dr. Foster thought it possible that it was supposed that the objections of the lociil body would bo made only in the public interest and on public grounds. The Act imposes upon them, now for the first time, the duty of considering the acts of their officer. The drafter of the Bill probably thought he had the advantage of the English Act. As Lord Denrnan used to say, " The Legislature intended to do so and so, but had not done what it intended, and he must take the law as ho found it."

Mr Mellishsaidif the word "person" did not include a local body, there seemed to be no obligation on the Council to forward a copy to the person affected, though the Act intended to make it obligatory. He would like to have that made perfectly clear. He would be glad if Dr. Foster would let him have the English Act. Dr. Foster reminded the Court that the Act having been passed since 1840 would not be binding here. He thought he could find it. It would simply say that in certain Acts the word " person " would have that interpretation. If so, his argument would be only strengthened, because the word "corporation" did not occur in this Act. Was it worth while to take up the rest of his argument ? Mr Mellish saw that the proclamation did not cover the want of forwarding the objections, if it was concluded that the local body was bound to forward them. Dr. Foster then would contend that there was nothing in the 19th clause to show that the objections sent should be identical with those sent to the Court. Having read the clause, he continued —What was ordered there had been done. Nothing was said about its being in the form of the 4th schedule. Mr Mellish —Only "as near as may be." Assuming that the City Council might be included in the word "person" if they object, through their clerk, to any entry in or omission from the valuation list, &c, affecting the interest of any other person, they would he bound to send a copy of that objection in whatsoever form it happened to be. Dr. Foster submitted that that would be interpolating a great deal. Mr Mellish could not see any other meaning, for how could a person Bend a copy of what did not exist, except in his own mind ? Dr. Foster contended that the clause only meant that such objections should be sent in writing. Mr Mellish did not think Dr. Foster would allow such a theory to be set up were he on the other side.

Dr. Foster said that it was impossible to make sense out of the Act. It did not say that the second class of objections should be made iu the same form as the first class. He did not find anywhere that the notice to be sent to the ratepayer should be the same as that sent to the Court. In the 17th clause there was something quite clear, but the 19th differed altogether from that. Mr Mellish did not see that it did.

Dr. Foster would waive that point, and rely upon the point that person does not mean corporation. But supposing that no copy had been sent, it was only a matter of form, if the Council let the persons interested know they had done all that the Act required. Mr Mellish thought the question was, whether the validation order of the Governor would cover the original objections, if they were in error in point of form. Dr. Foster quoted the Act to show it would validate anything " which may have been irregularly done in matter of form, so that the intent and purpose of this Act may have effect."

Mr Mellish said that care must be taken that no injustice was done. There was the case of Daws.

Dr. Foster had found that case impossible to argue. That went beyond the question of form. He fully accepted the dictum of the Court that all injustice should be avoided. For his present purpose he contended that the notices did give the persons interested the necessary information as to what they had to meet.

Mr Mellish said he had been, as it were, pleading the case of the parties objected to. He had felt bound to do so. If the point of the word "person" not including a local body was settled satisfactorily, he saw no reason—no other point at present—which would stand in the way of the objections being heard. Of course, the cases would rest upon their merits. The technical objection would be set at rest, and unless some other point should be raised by counsel representing tho parties, there was no objection to having the matter argued. Dr. Poster would take this in the form of a rule nisi. Mr Mellish thought it would be well to give notice of the day on which the objections would be heard. This concluded the sitting of the Court.