BOROUGH BY-LAW.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 139, 16 May 1925, Page 3

BOROUGH BY-LAW.

VALIDITY TESTED. TARRING OF STREETS. Much local interest was centred in a case heard at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in which James John Casey (Mr Cooper) proceeded against the Palmerston North Borough Council (J)lr Cooke) claiming the sum of £46.5, being the amount paid under protest by plaintiff to defendant as the cost of tarring and sanding a street constructed by plaintiff. No evidence was heard, only legal argument, the action being brought to determine the powers of the council in regard to the matter.

Plaintiff’s counsel, in explaining the circumstances surrounding the case, stated that his client had been desirous ol cutting up a block of land situated between i’eutherston street and Stanley Aver.ue, and tlie point now arose as to whether the local body had power to enforce certain regulations relative to the loading of the streets thus formed. The question also arose whether surh a street was a private one or not.

His Honour: It is no longer a private street when once it has been dedicated.

Continuing, counsel stated that, prior to the year 1900, a landowner could make what roading provisions lie wished, and it was not until 1920 that conditions relative to metalling were embodied in the Public Works Act. In the ease under review 18 sections had been cut up, but counsel held that, under section 335 of the Municipal Corporations Act, a public body had no power to impose regulations further than metal the road, lay sewerage and construct such footpaths as might be agreed upon. The Borough Council had last year passed a by-law compelling land owners on subdividing property to make provision foi the tarring and sanding of the roadways in addition to other works, but tins, he maintained, was ultra vires, such powers being restricted by section 181 of the Municipal Corporations Act. CASE FOR BOROUGH. Mr Cooke, in presenting the ease for the borough, stated that the outcome of tlie action carried with it considerable interest to all the boroughs in New Zealand, for some were similarly positioned to Palmerston North. Counsel’s first contention was that consent, which had been applied for and duly given, had been for the laying out of a private street and the conditions governing such had been accepted. It had, he continued, been a sub division and consent had not been upplied for under section lib of the Public Works Act. Such section applied where only part of a property was offered for sale, but in the present instance a whole block of land had been subdivided for sale. On December 2, a certificate for dedication had been sent m and consent applied for. There were two methods of acceptance but the eusier and less expensive method of allowing the roads to be accepted as public loads by dedication, had been employed. However, after the dedication had been signed, notification had been received by the Borough Council to the effect that tne original application had been made undpr the Public Works Act. Counsel contended that both tho Public Works Act and Municipal Corporations Act applied to subdivisions in boroughs and the person cutting up the land had to comply with both Acts. If, as he contended, tho two Acts applied, the Borough Council could insist on tho sanding and tarring of the roadways under section 181 of the Municipal Corporations Act which reads: “The council may im-

pose such conditions . . . or'otherwise in all respects as the council thinks fit.” Thus, added counsel, the borough had, provided their demands were reasonable, almost unlimited power. At the conclusion of the argument, His Honour announced that ho would reserve his decision.