New Plymouth Harbor Rate Enforced by Supreme Court.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume IX, Issue 1772, 4 November 1887, Page 2

New Plymouth Harbor Rate Enforced by Supreme Court.

SUPBEME COURT.— IN BANCO.

Thursday, Novembee 3. Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.

APPEAL. Thos. Bayly, appellant, and the New Plymouth Harbor Board, respondents. This was an appeal upon a question of law from the decision of the Besident Magistrate ie an action brought in the K.M. Court to recover £47 for rates, ia which the responded t was ptaiaciff and the appellant was defendant. Mr. Govett, instructed by Mr. W. T. L. Travers, of Wellington, appeared on behalf cf the appellant, and Mr. Samuel for respondents. Mr. Govett's contention was as follows :— (1) That by " The New Plymouth Harbor Board Ordinance 1875 Amendment Act, 1887 " section 15, power is given to the New Plymouth Harbor Board to levy an annual rate for certain specific purposes. (2.) The rate to be so levied was directed to be levied under " The Bating Act, 1876 " or any Act amending the same. (3.) The •' Rating Act, 1882 " is, therefore, the Act under which any rate to be made pursuant to and for the purposes ot the " New Plymouth Harbor Board Act, 1887, must be made. (4.) By the last mentioned Act the limit of rating is fixed an " not to exceed Is in the £ on the rateable value of property with* in the rating district." (5.) The rateable value at the date of the passing of this Act, was the rent at which the property would let lrom year to year, with certain deductions, but in no case less than 5 per ceut on the value of the fee simple. See definition of section 2, " Bating Act, 1876." (6.) The "Bating Act, 1882," fixes the rateable value at the assessed value of the fee simple, under the " Property Assessment Acts." (7.) But section 14 declares that " whenever, by any Act or ordinance, a limit of rating power has been imposed upon a local body, then, when Buch rating power has reference to the rateable value under the repealed Acts, a rating power of Is in the £ shall henceforth be exercised, as if it were a rating power of 3d ia the £ on the rateable value, as fixed by that Act." (8.) This language must mean " exercised or levied as the equivalent of $d in the £, etc.," and not as substituting $d in the £ for Is, looking more especially to the 4th paragraph of that section, which shows that a rate fixed by special Actor ordinance was to be continued. (9.) It would have been easy enough, if the intention were otherwise, to have used appropriate language to express it ; tor example, as follows, "Whenever, by any act or ordinance, a limit of rating power has been imposed upon any local body, then a rate of Jd in the £ on the rateable value, as fixed by this Act, shall from henceforth be levied, in lieu of, and as the equivalent for, Is in the £ t and so in proportion as any greater or lesser amount than Is in the £ on the annual value or rateable value, as the caße may be, fixed or nupo.sed by any such Act or ordinance," and leaving out altogether the fourth paragraph of section 14. (10.) It will, of course, be necessary to contend that the " Harbor Board Act, 1877," makes it imperative, within the

meaning of the fourth paragraph of section 14 of the " Bating Act, 1882," to fix the annual value for the purpose of any rate to be made under the provisions of the first-mentioned Act.

Mr. Samuel contended that the hoard had adopted the proper course in levying the rate, and that it* was not imperative upon tbe Harbor Board to fix the annual value for the purpose of striking tbe rate. He read and commented upon numerous Acts bearing on the question. His Honor said that he was at a loss to conceive anything more clear than the words in section 14 ot the Sating Act, which states that a rate of Is in tbe £ on the annual value, leviable at the passing of the Act, 6hall thenceforth be exercised or levied respectively as if it were a rating power of $ d in the £ on the rateable value as fixed by the Act. There was nothing in the Harbor Act, to make it imperative to fix the annual value. He would there* lire dismiss the appeal with costs.

Leave to appeal to tbe Court of Appeal was only granted upon Mr. Samuel con* Benting and pointing out that, if not granted, the ratepayers probablj would move tbe Supreme Court in the first instance for a writ of certiorari, and then take an appeal to tbe Ccnrt of Appeal as a matter of right, thus entail* ing six months' delay and verj largely increased expense, and possibly preventing ratepayers from paying tbeir rates aa& supplying funds to mccC the coupons on the loan.

His Honor remarked that, had il not been for the very exceptional circumstances and the respondent's desire, ht he would not have given leave to appeal, as be could nut see the slightest chance of the ratepayers doing otherwise than wasting their money, and it was with great reluctance he allowed them the opportunity of doing so. — News.