EDUCATION BEQUEST

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10966, 30 July 1921, Page 6

EDUCATION BEQUEST

HOWARD ESTATE CASE A CROWN TRUST NOT LIABLE FOR RATES. FULL COURT'S* DECISION. The Full Court yesterday refused! to make a declaratory order determining whether the realty in the estate of Josiah Howard, now held by the Public Trustee, in trite! for His Majesty tho King, a® provided by.tho Howard Estate Act, 1919, is liable to rates under tte Rating Act, 19GS. or otherwise. The Howard estate, which is the realty referred to, lies within the County of Waipawa. and the County Council has demanded payment from the plaintiff of the county rates in reflect of it. Counsel for the Public Trustee contended that the power of the council to make and levy rates i* not applicable to the estate. AUTHORITY TO RATE. This contention, said the Full Court, was well founded. The Rating Act. 1908. did not confer on local authorities the power to make rates, which was given by the Counties Act, 1920, whefio power® did not apply to property belonging to or vested in His Majesty. The court did not assent to the contention of counsel for tbe C-ounty Council, that the trust wa® a private one, created by a private donor. Testator devised the estate to Hb Majesty, without restriction or limitation. and*thc Howard Estate Act was passed to give legal effect to his intentions, which otherwise were ineffective. The trust declared by the Act was therefore created by th* Crown. ESTATE IS CROWN TRUST. The court added that it was clear to them that the Howard estate belonged to the King. The Public Trustee wax to hold it in trust for the Crown, as a permanent endowment for the purpose® of agricultural education, in accordance with the Act. He was constituted a leasing authority, and the net revenues of the estate were to be paid into the public account, as required by the Minister for Agriculture ; the residue, after provision for the nextrof-kin, to be paid into the estate accouht. Tlie expenditure wa® to be in accordance with a scheme or schemes approved by Order-in-CounciL The estate was, therefore, held under special trust for the Crown, and not under the Public Trust Acts. THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE. Apart from these considerations, th® court was of opinion that the estate would be exempt from rating under the series of authorities on the subject of the Toyal prerogative in England, quoting the Mersey Docks case, in which it was held that, “where the Crown is the occupier of the property, it ie Hot to be rated, and, further, .where property is occupied for the Crown, it is not to be rated.” A similar judgment in the University of Edinburgh case wa* also quoted by Their Honours. Tfe* answer to the. question put to the court, therefore, wa® that the realty in the Howard estate was not liable for rates under the Rating Act, 1908, or otherwise. The SolicitoiSGeneral (Mr W. C-Mac-Gregor,- K.C.), appeared for the At-torney-General, Mr G. G. Rose for the Public Trustee, and Mr Martin for the Waipawa County Council.