DISPUTED RATES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14219, 16 November 1909, Page 6

DISPUTED RATES.

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. [BY TELEGRAPH.—ritES9 ASSOCIATION.}

Wellington, Monday. Between the year 1897 and . 1907 the Korori Borough Council raised , speaal loans for various municipal undertakings in the district, for which special rates were struck. In 1903 the Northland district, formerly incorporated in the borough, became portion of the city of Wellington. Liability for the special rates was then disputed by the residents of Northland, and the Borough Council proceeded to sue Charles Anderson, Northland, on a test cafe for the payment of -these rates. The case was heard before Dr. McArthur, S.M., who decided that Northland residents were not liable, and the Council appealed from that decision. On behalf of Mr. Anderson it was contended that the rate de* manded was irregular as to date and service, and that no adjustment had been made between the city of Wellington and the borough of Karori; that Northland being now included in the corporation, the borough had no right to demand or recover rates from the ratepayers there, pending the making of the statutory adjustment.

In Riving judgment on Saturday Mr. Justice Cooper said that four essential matters must be borne in mind—(l) That each rate was made to provide the interest and sinking fund for a special loan; (2) that each rate as based upon the original special order under which it was made, .and was and is an annually recurring rate, and is to be levied under such special order; (3) each rate is earmarked as a security for the particular special loan; (4) the respondent borough, notwithstanding the fact that a part of its original territory has now been included in the city of Wellington, is liable for the due payment of -tie interest and principal of each such special loan. In His Honor's opinion the local body primarily liable for the loan and interest in respect of which the 'rate was made, and whose liability continues, at least until the adjustment, must be the authority entitled to receive, and therefore to collect the special rate. " Counsel for the appellant was," said His Honor, " unable to point to any statutory provision which would entitle the Corporation of Wellington before adjustment is made to collect these rates, and I have been unable to discover any." As to the first technical objection of appellant, that on its service the demand did not state whether the rate was demanded from him as owner or occupier, the Court held that the failure to strike • out the word " owner " did not affect the validity of the demand. The second objection was really that,, the information was inaccurate. If. however, there was a misdescription of the rate in it, but the information correctly stated the other particulars of the rate sufficiently to give the ratepayer reasonable information of what the rate is payment of the demand is sufficient." '

The appeal was dismissed with costs (£5 ss). Leave to appeal was granted.