RECOVERING RATES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22225, 27 September 1935, Page 14

RECOVERING RATES

COUNTY'S EIGHT TO SELL r - ■ OBJECTION BY MORTGAGEES AN INJUNCTION SOUGHT r The right of the Manukau County Council to soil certain mortgaged land for recovery of unpaid rates was challenged in an action brought before Mr. Justice Callan in the Supremo Court yesterday. The plaintiffs, for whom Mr. Barrowclough appeared, were William Haroid Walters, farmer, of Papakura, and Robert John Wnllis, retired, as trustees iti the Walters estate. The registrar of tho Supreme Court, J. C. Mulfroy, who had boon requested by the Manukau County Council to sell land mortgaged to the plaintiffs, was named as the defendant, and Mr. Prendergast appeared for tho County Council. Prior to tho execution of the mortgages, tho land in question was owned by James Paterson Sinclair. Tho area involved was about 170 acres, divided into four blocks, referred to as A, B, C and D. In March, 1933, tho Manukau County Council obtained judgment by confession for £165 for rates duo on tho land.. As this had not been paid, it asked the registrar to sell tho property, and the sale had been publicly advertised. The plaintiffs asked for a writ of injunction restraining tho registrar from selling land in mortgage to them. Separate Mortgagas

Mr. Barrowclough said that block A was subsequently under mortgage to the plaintiffs, block B substantially tinder mortgage to a trust company, and block C under mortgage to the State Advances Department. These had been advertised for sale as one lot. The blocks had been bought at different times, and some of them were separated by roads put in for subdivisional purposes. The plaintiffs said it wns impossible to ascertain what was a fair proportion of the rates to be borne by them in respect of the land in mortgago to them. They objected to being called on to pay rates on property mortgaged to the State Advances Department. When blocks B and C were acquired about 30 years ago, separate valuations were made in respect of each of them for many years, counsel continued. In 1914 the whole district was revalued, and sections B and 0 continued to be separately shown on tho valuation list until 1921. Then all four properties were lumped together and valued aa one, and that had continued to tho present.

Validity of Valuation Counsel's contention was thai the valuation and the rate founded on it were wrong and invalid, because the properties were not one, but separate. Further, the proposed sale of block 0, subject to a State Advances mortgage, was not authorised. The registrar must sell the feo simple, and could not, sell tho equity of redemption, and his proposal to sell block C invalidated the whole sale. Counsel directed argument to show that the four blocks in question worn not one property. The. amount involved, he said, was well over £3OO. Mr. Prendergast drew a distinction between separate parcels and separate properties, and said a property denoted ownership by one person. Land occupied and used as one property should be valued and rated as one. The only valuation in which the error of treating those parcels of land separately had been made was in 1914, when tho blocks B and C were brought forward as separate properties. His Honor said that an amalgamation of properties need not wait for <i general valuation, but should bo made by the Valuer-General whenever ic became necessary. Ho reserved his decision.