MANGAPAI.

New Zealand Herald, Volume X, Issue 2901, 16 May 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

MANGAPAI.

[fboji ouh OW>" correspondent.]

Ike Pettv Sessions was held in the Court- i Lfli'..r'j. on Tuesday, the Gth day of Aluy. The . only case brought before tlie Court was for , recovers of rate, viz., David Cole v. Richard Enagis, for 14-s 8-J, for highway rate at Id in the pound on value to sell. Plaintiff on . affirmation. stated, I am plaintiff, and put Gazette proclaiming the district under the ] Highways Act, Gazette bringing the Iligli- i Act into operation in the district, and ; appointing a place for first meeting, High- j wajs Act Amendment Act, IS7I, and all the ! other Highways Acts of the province ; also ; G-aze'.te containing notification of the present ; big'.-vrav trustee?, Gazette containing notice of i assessment list lmving been forwarded to the , Superintendent, Gazette containing appoint- | mei;t of collect or, Gazette proving Highways i Empowering Act, 1871, in operation within the district, minute book containing account of the annual meeting, 1872, for electing trustees, and levying a rate, and containing all transactions of tlie Board, original assessment list containing notice for hearing objections, s'.io rate book, and last, a hox containing all documents belonging to and connected with the Board. I called upon Mr. Knaggs on the Jan. 20, and cave him a bill and demanded his rate ; his answer was, it was rather premature. I read to him portion of Act Amendment Act, where it was stated that if not paid within 1-1 days he was liable to be sued. The money has not been paid. In cross-examina-tion by defendant, the plaintiff stated that he was not the chairman of the Board ; W. Ormislon, Esq . J.P., was the chairman. The defendant did not owe him any money privately, that he was suing him for rates on behalf of the Mangnp»: Highway Hoard, being legally gazetted for the same. He admitted that the BoarJ had not made out au assessment list of all persons liable to be rated and he knew it at the time, that they had not described all lands or tenements in the list, or any of them that he had in his occupation two tenements and a 6tore, that these tenements are not charged with rates in the list. He (the plaintiff) was aware of Mr. Baker occupying Mr. Kelso's house last June, and for six months afterwards ; and that Mr. Baker is not rated for it, and he knew it. He also knew that Mr. Freeman occupied a house and garden on Ormieton's property, and was not charged with rates for it. It was further elicited by defendant that the plaintiff (in addition to being a trustee) was secretary, collector, and treasurer to the Board, and that he proposed Mr. Freeman be paid £3 as clerk to do bis work. Further, that MeBSrB. Sloane, Ormisand H. Hewlett were elected aa valuers, a 'l of them being trusteees of the Board ; and that he proposed them all. He aUo knew that there were two tenements and a large mill oe the chairman's property, and none °' therj are rated. Defendant then called the attention of the Court to clause 36 of High-

ways Act, IS7I, which requires the Board of every district to cause n list to be made out, setting forth the names of all persons liable to be rated, with a description of all lands or tenements in respect of which such porsons are liable, &c.,and pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted t he Board had not complied with these conditions; and also referred to the two cases specially referred to, namely, Baker and Freeman. He nleo put in clause 33 and 35 of Highways Act, 1871, Bhowing the occupiers to be liable ; also, that no description of either lands or tenements were given in the assessment list as required.—The plaintiff was nonsuited.