TEE AMURI TOLLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9646, 11 February 1892, Page 3

TEE AMURI TOLLS .

At the Christchurch Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr R. Beetham, E.M., gave judgment in the case Price v. the Amuri County Council, in which the plaintiff claimed for the recovery of tolls alleged to have been wrongfully charged. The judgment was as follows The plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £55 8s 4d, which he alleged had been wrongfully charged- as tolls by the defendant Council. The grounds on which the plaintiff based hia claim were—(l) That the scale of tolls fixed by the Council was a variable one; (2) that the scale of tolls was not printed on a board as required by the Act. ■ The resolution fixing the tolls imposed one penny per head on sheep, and one shilling per bead on cattle and horses, passing over the bridges on which the toll was placed, and then provided certain exemptions which applied to stock bred and travelling under specified conditions. Certain stock was to be liable to half-tolls, and certain other stock to no tolls. It was contended by the plaintiff that the Council had no power to fix these variable tolls. He was of opinion that, in the absence of an equality clause in the Act, the County Council had power to impose the scale of tolls in question. He had then to deal with the second point. Clause 6 of the Public Works Act provided that no toll should he payable unless the scale of tolls was painted on a board, &c., to be placed conveniently, &c., and it was contended by the plaintiff that this had not been done. What had been done was that the scale of tolls had been painted on the board, but the scale of exemptions had not been painted. He could not see how the plaintiff was damnified by that. The scale of charges which he had to pay, and which he did pay, was painted on a board; and it did not lie with him to complain that certain information which did not affect him Was not on the board. If the stock which plaintiff drove was stock which the Council had resolved should be exempt from the tolls, and he had paid these tolls in default of information that he was exempted, then he would be entitled to recover. But in that case the Council was justified in imposing variable tolls, and plaintiff had therefore only paid hia just dues, and had nothing to complain of. Moreover, having all the information which affected him supplied by tne Board, and having paid the money with a full knowledge of the facts so far as he was concerned, he could not in law recover. The equities in the case were clearly against the plaintiff, but if he wished to put the points of law on which the case rested to the test he could appeal. Mr Joynt asked for costs, which were allowed. Mr Salter said his client would probably appeal. .