AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 314, 19 May 1888, Page 2

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

At the R.M. Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr J. Allen, R.M., the case Lower Wairau River Board v. Edward Augustus was heard, being a claim for L 9 8s Gd for rates. It was a test case to recover rates on a building that had been burnt down on 30th June, 1887.

Mr MTntire appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Sinclair for the defendant.

Mr MTntire, in opening the case for the plaintiffs, said the question at stake was only ono of law. lie relied on the sections of “ The Rating Act, 1882,” for the proper definition of the term “occupier.” The rates due were as follows : For 18SG-87, LG 5s Sd ; for ISB7-SS, L 3 2s lOd; total, L 9 Ss Gd. James Burns Green, Collector for the Lower Wairau Rivers Board, produced the rate book, which showed the amount of rates due by defendant. The rates were now in arrear.

To Mr Sinclair : The rate 1887-8 S was struck on 4th August, 1887. I take my rateable value from the Property Tax Commissioner. The capital value is L2OIO. Defendant’s building was burnt down on 30th June, 1887, and I believe he lias not been living on the property since that date.

To Mr MTntire : The rate was struck after the fire. The River Board roll is supplied by the Property Tax Commissioner.

Edward Augustus, the defendant, 6aid he held the property in question on lease from Mr J. J. Sinclair for a term of 21 years. There was a covenant in the tease that Mr Sinclair was to erect the buildings, if burnt. Mr W. Sinclair produced the lease in question. To Mr MTntire : I am not liable for the rent until the buildings are re-built. His Worship wanted to know how the rate was arrived at.

Mr Sinclair said he would produce evidence on that point. The case, however, was not such a good one for a test case as might have been brought forward. The Borough Council would have a better one before the Court next week, when the claim would be against the late occupiers of the Criterion Hotel, which had also been destroyed by fire. For that reason be hoped His Woeship would reserve judgment in the present case until after he had heard the other case. Of course, in Augustus’ case the summons had been issued, and it had to be gone on with. The ease was not one that could be appealed on, and thought a much better case might have been selected as a test. Mr Sinclair then cited several similar cases, in order that His Worship might have a Getter opportunity of judging. James John Sinclair said that he had returned the valuation of . the property to the Property Tax Commissioner. Another valuation had been put in, but witness’ bad been accepted as the more correct. The land was valued at L 1250, and the building atLTGO. Mr W. Sinclair pointed out to the Bench that defendant did not dispute the first part of the claim, . r md he was also willing to pay three-fourths of the second. His Worship : Who is the occupier at present ? Mr J. J. Sinclair: I think I am—more so than Mr Augustus is. I don’t dispute tho rate on the land ; I will pay that willingly. What I object to is the rate on the building.

Mr W. Sinclair said he did not want to admit anything in the matter. His Worship: Then it throws the responsibility on to the shoulders of Mr J. Sinclair, as he confesses that he is on the land. It would simplify things very much if the defence admitted that. Mr W. Sinclair ; I don’t want to admit anything, as it might influence the other case.

In reply to Mr M’lntire, witness said the fire only broko off the contract as to the rent of the building, and not as to the lease. Mr Augustus was still liable for a portion of the rent, as tho agreement was that only part of it was to be knocked off in case of the building being burnt down. Witness contended that if a landlord withstood part of his rent, the Board should do likewise with their rates.

Mr M’lntire, in addressing the Bench, said the defence set up was extremely intelligible, but that if His Worship considered all thiugs, it could not be sustained for a moment. Legislature was very clear in the present case. Ho relied on sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Act, and the meaning therein given to the term “occupier.” He held that if a man were in occupation of a certain property when a rate book was comp'led, that man was liable for the rates.

His Worship thought that the real point of the case had not been touched on by either .party. He took it that the defendant admitted the first part of the claim, and of tho second part he only disputed the rate on the building. Tho amount was so small that 'hey would not be able to take it to the Supreme Court. He would give judgment in the caso at the same time as the one which was to come on next week.