Page 7 Advertisements Column 1

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10239, 22 December 1894, Page 7

Business Uotices. < Mr" ... . ' crcd MB. FOSTER & SONS (LIMITED), j the o (Established lSi'l. Incorporated ISflO). j»™ THE "UUGLE BRAND" BOTTLED HUSKS. ffhe Larrest Bottlers and Shippers in the World oud OUTPUT: ?E; li IS9D ... S, 111,772 Bottles lRh: ... 5,75G,428 Bottles- "*ll IS'il ... S,'.i;-1,170 ii ISaa ... 9,(JS3,UtM ii OXs , Ot.lll Head Offices : 27 and 29 Brook street, Bond *'>n street, London, Yf. a r > of Bottled Bear by Appointment to re"' the House of Commons. £ou GOLD MEDALS AWARDED: ?<* 1892-Two at the Kimberley and One at the I'raneo-fiuiso Exhibitions. () f 18SB—One at the Batavia Exhibition and Highest raa Award Chicago Exhibition. sat ■ ii. .'I '■ ———. on SUPREME COUIIT JUDGMENTS. «| *— — Sir OAMAHU HARBOUR BOARD. to On Fridnylast his Honor Mr Justice Williams £<£ heard argument ia a summons by this board for ma uirections to tha receiver to apply the surplus of -wu the speeia ate levied under " The Oamaru Har- I bour Board Loan Act of ISS7" (that is to say, what ™j would remain after paying interest on the loan ~ v \ raised under that act) towards forming a sinking pai fund. Ths Hen. J. MacGregor appeared in sup- m» port of Lhesunmions, acdMr Woodhouso appeared I on ior JSlr tteckwith Smith, an 1579 bondholder, to sh< oppose the summons on the ground that the IST'.I | jui bondholders bud a charge on the surplus rates and \va that tlie circumstances had not arisen under bii which the board would be entitled to create a frc sinking fund. Judgment was given yesterday sui dismissing the summons. His Honor's decision cai was as follows :— Ju " By the .sixth section of the act of 18S7 the proceeds of the rate are to be applied towards payment of intareat on any lobbb to be raised under the act, and 'towards the payment of any sinking fund which may be arranged to be set aside at the time of the floating of the said loan or afterwards.' I think the case can be disposed of ..' on the one ground that the loan authorised by section 4of the act, which is the loan the floating M of which is referrod to in section 6, has never th been floated. £iOO9 of the £40,000 authorised ia a { the total amount that has been raised on deben- iv tures uuder the act. What wan done in 18SS wiih J to obtain an advance of i.'30,1)00 from the Govern- iji roent on the terms montioued in Sir H. Atkin- t sou's letter of the 7th November ISBS. By tha ju bixteent.h section of the net of JSS7 the board - v were authorised, pendiDK the raising of the loan ' authorised by the aot, to arrange for advances not | £ exceeding one-half of the amount authorised. , c j The advauce of £30,000 was greater than thia A , one-half, and the preamble of the act of 181)2 b , recites accordingly 'that doubts had arisen as to 0! thf validity of the advance so made, or as to part j,, thereof.' The act of 1502 simply makes this y advance valid, and gives a special remedy for w recovering it. The conditions respecting the ,j, advance were fixed by the aot of 1592, and are in Bnb»titution for those arranged in Sir H. Atliin- n; Bon'a letter, which were never carried out, and could not have been carried out without special - legislation. The act of 18S2 treats this advance as a sum due to tho Crown and recoverable at once. Debentures to a greater amount than the £30,000 advanced were deposited with, vn.d are EtiUhoid by, the Government; but no risk v over the debentures so lodged could be given in any Dther way than by statute, and the only right given is to hold them until payment of the Rdvances made. Th 3 Government can demand Et any time payment of the £30,000. If default is made, no power ia given to the Government to iodise on the debentures, nor is the money advanced for the term and on the footing of the debentures. If there U default, the Government cannot put in suit the debentures deposited with * them, but are to proceed uuder subsection 2 of Bection 2 of the act of IS<)2. on a hypothetical Btate of circumstances. If the board were to repay the £30,000 to-morrow they would, by section 4 of the act of 1892, get back the debentures and be in a position to float the loan ; nor , doea it follow from this that the board cannot I apply the rate towards payment of the interest on tie advance, although the loin has not been floated. An advance maiie woder- section 16 of the_ _ net of 1887 is a loan to be raised uuder the act of / 1887, and section 6 gives power to apply the rate towards payment of the annual charges to accrne - iv respect of any loans raised under the act. The - sinking iund, however, is to be Eet aside at t|ie time of the floating of ' the said loan,' or after- ■ wards—' tha ssiid loan' evidently referring to the • special loan to be raised on debentures by virtue ■ of section 4 t.he act. A sinking fund is, of courue, wholly inapplicable to where a loau is payable at ; any time on demand, or, as in the present case, is recoverable at any time even without any previous demand." ... Coats of both the petitioner and the board were allowed out of tbe fund. BOROUGH OF NASEBY V. LAW -. A QUESTION OF WATER KATES, In tha case of the Borough of Na^eby y. Law, ru appeal from the Magistrate's Court at Naseby, his Honor gave judgment as follows ;— " The claim of the appellants for £S for water supplied to the respondent is based upon an" alleged agrearuent with the re pondent to pay that amount. The claim, indeed, must bo based op an agreement, because there has been no by-l*w fixing a rate for an extraordinary supply of water, and therefore the appellants must rely on "an agree-' nient either under section 93i! or under section 325, subsection 2, of ' The Municipal Corporation!! Act JSs(i.' The respondent, in May 18S7, had Bgrecil with the council to pay double the ordinary annual water rate fur the extraordinary supply of water supplied to him, Thia agreement, according to the towu clerk's evidence, had been acted on both by the respondent and the borough from May 18S7 until the meeting of the council on the 2nd of June 1893, when the council resolved to charge the rtspondent the larger amount. The financiiU year expired on the Slat March, and the respondent had paid rates under the agreement of 1887 up to that time. On whit terms, then, was the council supplying and the rsupondent using the water after the 31m; of March? The respondent had no notica of any intention on the part of the council to alter the agreement which had been acted upon for so many years that he should be supplied with water at double the ordinary rate, and the council continued to uupply him with water for more than two months after a new year had begun. I think from these circumstances it must be inferred that the water was Eupplied and taken under the agreement that the price for the supply for the then current year was xo be at the rate agreed upon iv 18S7 and charged ever since. The town clerk's evidence amounts in fact to an admission that the water was bfing supplied on the basis of | the old agreement. I do not think that duiing i the then current year the council had any power I to compel the respondent to enter into an agreement to pay a higher rate. It iiiay be that if the council had made a by-law levying a general rate in respect of an extraordinary supply of water, then, under subsection 2 of (section 325, the general rate might have overridden the particular agreement, but they have not done so. Certainly tho respondent never did agree to pay the higher rate, but insisted that he had only agreed to pay, nnd only would pay, the lower rate,. If the council, knowing this, continued to supply water to the respondent, when they could at any time have stopped the supply, they cannot rely upon an implied agreement that the respondent would pay the higher rate. The question as to whether ths water was supplied under section 321 or under section 330 seems to me immaterial. The council for a long series of years has treated it as supplied iindtir the former section, and as if the rate had been agreed on by virtus of subeectioa 2 of section 325. I am not prepared to say that they were wroDg. Under whichever section the water was supplied, the appellants have to establish that the respondent agreed to pay for it at the rate claimed, and in this they have failed. Appeal dismissed With costs (£3 83)."