THE HARBOR RATE.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 177, 2 August 1888, Page 3

THE HARBOR RATE.

The hearing of the case, Gisborne Harbor Board v. James Bailey, was resumed at the B.M. Court on Tuesday morning, when Mr DeLautour continued his argument. He again contended that any evidence which would tend to show that the rate was invalid was irrevelant, and could not be admitted. This did not perpetrate any injustice, as any person who wished to test the legality of a rate could bring an action in the Supreme Court. The 27th section of the Rating Act of 1882, disenabled

any person on a mere suit brought for the recovery of rates to question the validity of the rates. It was suggested for the defendants that the 21st section of the Act of 1882 only allows the rate book to be evidence unless the contrary was proved, and therefore they were entitled to prove the contrary ; but there was exactly a similar provision in the Act of 1876, the 44th section of which laid down that the rate book signed by the Secretary and Chairman should unless the contrary be proved be evidence in all Courts. The case of Hawke v. Grafton Local Board decided that the invalidity of a rate did not avail to prevent a person being sued though that person could set up as a defence that the Board

was not duly elected. Mr Brassey said it appeared as if an attempt was made to stop and burke evidence instead of arriving at the points at issue in the case. He submitted that the objections of the plaintiff’s side had not been sustained tor one moment. He had the right to enquire into the matter. The rate was made under the Gisborne Harbor Act and the demand was made under the sth schedule of the Bating Act. He quoted the remarks of Mr Justice Gillies in delivering judgment in a similar case, in which His Honor

eaid it was monstrous to suppose that no defence could be set up as to the validity of a rate. He again submitted they had a perfect right to question Mr Bourke as to the validity of the rate. He was not a little surprised that a local body of such a standing as the Gisborne Harbor Board should try to restrain such evidence being given. Mr DeLautour said Mr Brassey’s contention was that he could elicit evidence that the rate was void. He repeated his former argument that an action to best the legality of a rate could only be brought in the Supreme Court

His Worship (Mr Booth) ruled that he could not admit evidence questioning the legality of the rate, except on the ground that the rate was of a f ‘eater amount in the pound than the oard was allowed to levy. John Bourke (re-examined by Mr Brassey): Was aware the summons were issued. Gave demand on the usual form. Could not say whether he filled in the form himself. He was certain he posted it. The dates were not the same in the rate book and demand. The notice was not in accordance with the summon® 1“ particular. The notice was advertised. Mr DeLautour objected to this evidence being put in, as its admissability had been overruled. Mr Brassey said he was not trying to impugn the validity of the rate, but to show that the rate was improperly made. Mr Brassey did not press the question, but proceeded to address the Bench for the defence. The plaintiff had not proved that notice of demand had been given. He would claim a nonsuit as the plaintiff had not substantiated their claim. Mr DeLautour said there was no evidence that the demand had not been properly made. He contended that proper notice had been given, as every particular had been supplied to the defendant.

His Worship said it had been proved that the requirements of the Act had been conformed to, and he would refuse to grant a nonsuit. Judgment was entered up for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs, £2 Is. On the next case being called on, Mr Brassey suggested that the remainder of the cases should be left over until an appeal had been heard. Mr DeLautour would ask the Court ■to give him judgments. f Mr Brassey said every party would appeal. Mr DeLautour did not think so. There was a case already in the Su- . preme Court where the appellant was no party to the appeal. Mr Brassey did not think it was anything he was interested in. Mr DeLautour said the Board had already suffered hardship. Mr Brassey thought the ratepayers were simply being strangled. His Worship ruled that the other Cases should be taken. The following cases were then heard: — . Gisborne Harbor Board v. Annie Bailey, claim 12s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with 6s costs. Same v. P. Barker, claim £9B 3s 6d. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs, £5 9s. Same v. Barker, claim 16s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 12s. Same v. A. W. Croft, claim £lol2s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs,

£2 lg ‘ , . „„ „ Same v. Jane Gregson, claim £2 9s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 6s. Same v. T. Gregson, claim £5 4s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 10s. Same v. John Waugh, claim £7 5s lOd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 12s. . Same v. A. McKenzie, claim £l2 18s 9d. Judgment for plaintiff with £2 Ils. Same V. A. Devery, claim £4 3s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, 19s. , Same v. John Mclntosh, claim £1 * Bs. Judgment for plaintiff with coats, 19s. Same v. John Baldwin, claim £ll3s 4d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs, . Sam© v. Matthew Hall, claim £6 18 & Bd. The defendant objected to paying rates on much greater area than he really occupied. His Worship said Mr Hall should have attended the Assessment Court and objected to the valuation, Judgment for plaintiff with costs, lOfl