RATE-BOOKS AS EVIDENCE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3441, 24 May 1898, Page 4

RATE-BOOKS AS EVIDENCE.

LIMIT OF CONCLUSIVENESS. The extent to which a rate-book is, under section 43 of the Rating Act, 1894, conclusive evidence in all Courts of the correctness of its contents, and that it has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, was dealt with by members of the Court of Appeal yesterday, when giving judgment in the case Mayor and others of Auckland v. Speight, The Court had before it two conflicting judgments on the point. Mr Justice Conolly had, in the case under appeal; held that the rate-book was conclusive. The Chief Justice; in the case the county of Wairna v. the Bank of New Zealand Estates Company, held that evidence could be given to contradict the rate-book on the questions of ratability and occupancy. :Mr Justice Dennis ton, Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Pennefather now expressed their opinion that the Chief Justice took the right view of the section. Mr Justice Denniston said the only point to be now determined was whether Mr Speight, the respondent in the action brought to recover the rates for which on the rate-book he appeared liable in respect of the Government Life Insurance Department's premises at Auckland, could plead as a defence the facts of nnratahility and non-oooupancy; or whether the entry in the Auckland dity Council s rate-book tnvtet he accepted as conclusive on these points. The rate-book was to be conclusive evidence of the correctness of its contents, and that it had been made in accordance with the Act. The latter proviso, he (Mr Justice Denniston) thought, went only to the question of the due observance of all formalities. As to what was meant by conclusive evidence of its contents. Milward v. Caffyn (2, Wm. Bl.) and a long list of oases in which it was followed, showed that very similar words iu the English statute 43 Elizabeth, chapter 2, had been held to conclude the parties only as to such matters as were within the jurisdiction of the particular Court or body to decide. If; therefore, he was right in the conclusion that the question of the ratability of any land, or of any actual ownership or occupancy, were not by the Act referred to the. decision of the Assessment Court, the words of section 43 did not make the rate-book conclusive evidence on either of these points, and they could be raised and determined iu the Magistrate’s Court on an action for

rates. Mr Justice Edwards said that in his opinion the rate - book; notwithstanding section 43, was conclusive only as to the matters which it was within the jurisdiction of the valuer under the Act to determine; subject to an appeal to the Assessment Court; and it was not Within the jurisdiction either of the valuer or of the Assessment Court to determine that property which was in express terms exempted from liability to be rated was in fact ratable, or that a person who was not either in law or fact an owner or occupier was an owner or ooonpier. The Bth section was the foundation of the jurisdiction. It empowered the valuer to place upon his valuation list ratable properties only, and the names of persons who were in fact owners or occupiers of such ratable properties. It the valuer placed upon the valuation list property which was not ratable, or if he placed upon the valuation list as owners or occupiers of property (whether ratable or not) the 'names of persons who were not in fact owners or occupiers of such property, his act was beyond his jurisdiction; and was void. If the original act of the valuer was void, then the subsequent confirmation of the list by the Assessment Court was equally without jurisdiction, and void.