MAKARA RIDING.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 5557, 7 April 1905, Page 3

MAKARA RIDING.

THE QUESTION OP RATING. Yesterday the Court of Appeal, consisting of Justices Williams, Do must on, Edwards, and Cooper, gave judgment on an appeal by the Hutt County Council ■against a decision of the Chief Justice granting an injunction to 0. J. Craw- , ford, Wellington, restraining the Council from levying any rates over the Vlakara riding of the county, on the ground that there wore no main or county roads in the riding. The question turned upon the interpretation of section 149_ of the Counties Act. Mr Justice Edwards,, in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court, »aid .—-"The plain meaning of section 149 is. in my opinion, that the Council ■ in striking the rate shall take into consideration the requirements of each rid»ng, and that if in any riding any appreciable expenditure is required which is not general expenditure, it shall strike a higher rate in that riding. Although the County Council is required by section 149 to make and levy the general rate separately in each riding of the county in accordance with the expenditure required to be provided in such ridings ‘respectively, wo are unable to .ice that the statute has made it a condition precedent to the striking of a rate that any formal estimate or account should bo made of the proposed expenditure in each riding. Separate accounts for each riding, as well as a general county account, must no doubt bo kept, but this is under section 146, not section 149, and the riding accounts required by section 140 to be kept are clearly enough accounts of actual receipts and expenditure, and not a mere estimate of anticipated receipts; and expenditure. As the County Council has made the rate in accordance with the principles laid down by the statute, and as in my opinion, no formal estimate of the expenditure required in each riding is required by the statute to be made prior to striking the rate, the appeal should”, in my • opinion, be allowed, with the same costs in the Court below as were allowed against the appellants—viz., £lO 10s, and all necessary disbursements, and with costs in this Court on the highest scale.” Judgment was entered accordingly. Messrs Skerrett and Morison argued the case for appellants, Mr Dalziell for respondent.