MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13656, 27 July 1906, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July %. jßctorc Mr W. (!. Ttiddell, s.M.) Judgment, by dcfamt. with touts, ivas given in tin- followinj; cases:--John M'Donald (Sir C. E. Stadium) v. James (.iillipiu (Cromwell), c!nim ss. balance of claim (costs As); John Bruce Morris (Mr Statham) v. Edward K. l'liilp (liiveri-arpi:]), claim £8 Is, balance duo on promissory nolo (costs ft ,'ls Gd): Cut-ten Bros. (Mi Buritard) -. OrcynioiU.ii Timber and Lund Company (Oievmo'uth). vlnitti i'lS Hi work and labour done'(costs XI 10s Gd). Jnim M'Donak! (Mr Stadium) v. William Pledger (Itoslyn).-Judgment claim {or .{I.Aii order \vmr made (or payment of the amount bv August 9, in default sevou (lavs' imprisonment. Catherine Speddiug (Mr J. R. V. Slamper) v. '~,'" [!■ . S ' -'"'"'rie.-JudKineiit claim for £t Os llu.—Kvidcuce as to means having been given, no order was mede. HaikOiiniti County Council v. Duncdin Citv Corporatum.-Clnin, fl 15., 7,1, r „t c9 0 n n m r"\?*''.V l 1 by ll " > defendant corponitioii.- • V ''* pkll! R "I'Pcarod (or plaintiff, and Jlr \\. (.. M.ic(',re s or for dofci:dant.-Mr 1 Asking sau the nl ,„ tio „ im . ( ,| m , jn „ le claiml™ whether the land came mulct sec l!,™"' ",' Municipal Corporations Act. 11)00, ■ and was therefore, cxeinirt from ratine ss a waterworks area as that section provided! I'lm onils 0! proving this, he contended rested with I ho other side. He nrpned that the ordinary or popular meaning oi waterworks must tw given to that term in section 117. The other side would bring in a definition contained in the act, but that definition was expressly confined to parts 27 and >2& of th o act. wheroa.-; tectum 117 was in p?it 10. There wss very good reason for catchwater grow not being exempt frora talifig, as they pouy Uj wA ti.a sstaswation derive *

revomio from thorn without raying taxes or without the tenant being liablo to pay. 'Die corporation would tints got an increased rental consequent on the tenant's freedom from taxes. It would bo unfair for a county in which a catchwatcr area, was situated under these circumstances to bo unable to collect taxes and yot have to maintain roads connected with tha area. He cited several cases in support, and contended that in order that land should be exempt for waterworks purposes it should be oxclusivcy devoted to waterworks, and not as in this case-partly for waterworks and partly for grazing purnoses. Tho corporation were practically making endowments of their catchwafer area. —Mr W. C. IHacGrcgor. for defandant. admitted ownership, nnd also that part of the land was leased for "razing purposes, and John Portcous 'produced the county rate book, showing that the arcs included sections 32 to 35, block 111, Blncskin district, and section 3. block X, Silver Peak district.-Counsol for _ the defence contended first, as a preliminary point, that proceedings had been commenced too late, and that action should have been taken within six months of tlio lath July, 1903,' in terms of section 402 of

"Tho Municipal Corporations Act 1900"; secondly, that the land now sought to he rated was portion of (ho Dunedlu waferwrits, which was granted to tho City Council in 1802 in trust for the conservation of a water supply, and had ever since formed portion of the water gathering ground for the city water supply, and therefore was exempt from rates. Tlio fact that a temporary grazing right had been granted over it to Mt Irishman did not divest it. of its character as, a water-gathering ground, and accordingly it still retaaincd portion of the waterworks both within the stattitoiy and popular definition of that term; thirdly, that in any event no rates could he levied on any portion of the ground until after January 22, lOflG, the date of tho granting of a. grazing Tight to Mr fieis'liman.-Ilia Worship reserved decision in tho case after further legal argument.