The Harbor Bate.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 176, 31 July 1888, Page 2

The Harbor Bate.

RATEPAYERS TESTING ITS LEGALITY. The Harbor rata oases were again brought up at the B.M. Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr Booth. In the case against the Auckland Agrioul. tural Company, Mr Brassey, on behalf 0! Mr Ward, applied for an adjournment. Mr DeLautour said Mr Ward knew that the case was set down for a special date, and h e would object to an adjournment.

His Worship said the case would be adjourned till Tuesday. Judgment went by default in the cases against John Trimmer, claim £4 16s Bd. Michael Mullooly, claim £2 15s 3d; Charles Doyle, claim £1 8s 4d. THE FIBST TEST CASE. Gisborne Farbor Board v. James Bailey. Mr DeLautour for plaintiff, Mr Brassey for defendant, Mr Brassey objected to the particulars of demand set out in the summons, which merely stated, " Demand 18, 36 Childers Boad, hotel, amount £ll 9s 2d.” In the R.M. Court Act it was laid down that whenever a summons was issued, particulars of demand were set up. The summons was what was known as “ account rendered." He cited a case decided at Dunedin, Taieri County Council v. Walton Park Company, demand for rates. The action was dismissed on the grounds that the summons should furnish definite information as to the nature of the claim. He submitted that in the summons there was nothing specially stated. It was simply l laccount rendered. The Court was entitled to have before it the whole particulars required by the Sth schedule of the Rating Act of 1882. Mr DeLautour said the description of the property was taken, in the first instance, from the valuation roll of the Government, and was the seme as in all rating books of local bodies. The gist of the objection taken, was this; That all the details required by the Sth schedule were not in the demand.

Mr Brassey again contended that the particulars were insufficient. The demand did not state for what period the rate was levied. He submitted that the necessary information required in the Statute had not been given. His Worship said the particulars were not embarrassing, and he would overrule Mr Braseey'e objection. John Bourke deposed to making the demand for rates. He filled up the demand according to the terms of the Act, taking all the particulars from the rate book. Posted it to Mr Bailey’s address on October 4, 1837. At Mr Brassey’s request Mr Bourke produced the minute book of the Board, and was asked to read the minute referring to the striking of the rate. Mr DeLautour objected to the evidence as being irrelevant. He contended that the 27th section of the Bating Act said the invalidity of any rate as a whole shall not avail to prevent recovery of rates unless such invalidity be that the rate is of a greater amount in the pound than the local body is empowered to levy. Ths Gisborne Harbor Board Act went even further, and declared that no action could be quashed on the ground that the rate was invalid, but this did not prevent any ratepayer bringing an action on behalf of himself and his fellow ratepayers, to test the legality of the rate. He quoted the case of Alexander v. Wellington Education Board, and cited other cases in support of his argument.

The Court adjourned till 10.39 a.m. to-day, when Mr DeLautour will resume his argument.