HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE AID RATE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXII, Issue 165, 15 July 1886, Page 2

HOSPITAL AND CHARITABLE AID RATE.

— '■- — - APPEAL OP THE AWATERE ROAD BOARD. Messrs Allen, R.M. (Chairman), Cyrus Goulter, and Thomas Horton, Commiasionors appointed by virtue of the "Hospitals and Charitable Aid Act, 1885," held a sitting of the Court this morning, to hear the appeal of the A water o Road Board against the contribution assessed upon them by the District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. Mr Rogers, instructed by MrC J. W. Griffiths, Secretary to the A waters Road Board, appeared for the.appelfe ants. The District Board appeared* by Mr J. E. Hodson, their Secretary^ but were not represented by counsel. The amount appealed against was L 207 8s 3d, being a contribution for twelve months ending 31st March, . 188G, based upon a rate of l-12th of a penny upon the capital value of property. . Mr Rogers handed m a statement shewing the following fads : —Contribution assessed upon capital value basis: Blenheim L 132 Hi, Awatcua L 207 8a 3d, Omaka L7G Ha 31, Spring ' Creek L 45 3s, Wairau Lllß h'n 0.1, total LT)80 5s 31. Suggested rate of half amount on capital value basis and ha.'f on population basis : Blenheim L2lO 9d 3d, Awafere 1421 Is 3J, Omaica LO7 0« SJ, Spring Croak T.fisi L 55 lOafid; Wairau LOft 3s 1 0.1. Mr Rogers pointed out the unfairness of an assessment upon the capital value basis. P.louheini, with 07 palienis m two years, would pay LI 7s' 8 V per head ; while the A waters with 3:1 would pay LG f>s iid, Omaka with 17 would pay L 4 I(k 7<l, Spring Creak with 25 would pay LI ICh 111, and Wairau with 0 would p.Vy LI 3 U Id. Practically the Awatore, with only .% third of the patients sent hy Blenheim, paid three times as much per head V" Blenheim did. Mr Rogers, did; njfc-' contend that T,he assessment should be made entirely upon the population basis, but urged that , hy llm mode suggested— half capital valne and half population— property would bear its full burden, and the unjust disparity between the Borough and • the country districts wonld be somewhat reduced. Instead of LI 7a 3.1 per head Blenheim would pay L 2 3 < ; and instead of Lfi 5s 5d Awktere would pay L 3 13? 4d. He contended that, considering the relative populations (Blenheim 3094 and Awatere 372), the relative number of patients, and the distance of the Awatere from the hospital, the suggested mode of assessment ought to be agreed to. Mr Allen called the attention of Mr Rogers to section 23 of the Act, which provided that contributions from each of the local antho.ities should be proportioned to the rateable va,lue of the rateable property. ■ Mr Rogers said that sub-section 3 of Clause 22 provided that the Board was to appoint the proportion of the contribution to be made by each sneh local authority respectively. Having settled that proportion, which might all the Board had to do under Clause 23 was to state a mere rule of three sum. Mr IJEprton said the . point w*»s whether' the contributions were on a rateable basis, and not on the capital value basis mentioned by Mr Rogew. . Mr Rogers said it amounted m this' case to tho same thing. . He did not understand that the Co'nit raised the question whether there was any right of appeal from the mode of contribution. *■■"?# —

Mr Allen said that, the CommisRioners having beenan^tructed by the fiovernment to sit, it must be aaaiimed that there was a risxht to appeal. Mr Rogers said that, if the Board could not appeal from . the way m which they were assessed, there would be nothing to appeal against ; and Clause 25, giving any contributory local authority the right of appealing if they deemed the contribution unjust, would be meaningless. He con-: tonded that the Act did not' make it obligatory upon the District Board to assess all the contributing districts upon the same basis 1 m reference to one another, or to assess them all according to ratable or capital value, [f a contributing body could not appeal against such 'matters as those, then the Act was a dead letter. Mr "Rogers added, that, fif the Comramis.sioncrs considered the contribution unjust, but were 61 opinion ;that it \tna beyond their jurisdiction to alter it, he would bo quite. satisfied if thuy; gavo tlieir. jdeciaion,- for ,thore nuist: surely be some power that would enable it to be carried into, effect. \ Mr Uriftiths gave evidence verifying the figflres* quoted by Mr Rogers. Mr Tlodson proved that the contributions from all the local bodies had been based npp.i a uniform rate of 1-1 2 th mi tho; £ npdri- tho: capital value. Mr ,Roger^,, m reply to ; tlje, .Bench, said he admitted iho' vshdity'of the rate. Ilia only objection was to the justice of- .(.he amount. - The Commissioners intimated they would give their docision at ?> p.m.