COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22833, 18 March 1936, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL

SALE OF FARM LAND PROCEEDINGS UNDER RATING ACT (Pkk United Press Association) WELLINGTON, March 17. The Appeal Court was engaged this morning hearing the case of Walters and another versus Malfroy and the Manukau County. The mortgagees of part of the land owned by James Paterson Sinclair are appealing from Hie judgment of Mr Justice Fair delivered at Auckland on October 7, 1935, refusing a writ of injunction to restrain tbe respondents from selling Sinclair’s land as a whole for unpaid rates. The facts are that Sinclair is the owner of 1721 acres of land in the Manu-

kau County, the plan of which shows three pieces. Owing to his failure to pay his rates the Manukau County Council obtained judgment for these and took steps to sell the land under the provisions of the Rating Act, 1925. '1 he land was advertised for sale as a whole, but the appellants objected to this and commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court to prevent the respondent Malfroy from proceeding with the sale. The Manukau County Council was then by consent joined as a further defendant and the first-named respondent has since taken no part in the proceedings. The grounds for the appellants’ objection were that the land had been wrongly valued as a whole and that the entries in the valuation roll and rate book as well as all subsequent steps taken were without jurisdiction. The three pieces of land are all mortgaged, each to -different sets of mortgagees. The appellants further contend that the effect of selling the land as a whole will be to throw the burden of the rates of one piece, which is mortgaged to the State Advances Department, on to the other pieces. In the alternative it is claimed that as the respondent Malfroy proposes

to sell something other than the unencumbered fee simple of part of the land this would be outside the powers given by section 7 of the Rating Act, 1925. After Mr Barrowclough had concluded bis submissions on behalf of the appellants he was followed by Mr Prendergast, who appeared' for the respondent. Submitting that the land bad been rightly valued as a whole Mr Prendergast contended that the main factor was the use to which the property was put, and that if it were used as one farm it was one property even though it was divided by roads. The case, was adjourned until tomorrow.