HOSPITAL LEVIES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17947, 26 November 1932, Page 7

HOSPITAL LEVIES

VALUATION DISPUTE SUPREME COURT RULING (I’er l’rnsa Association.) WANGANUI, last night. “There is no provision for special action in determining the approximate value for the information of hospital hoards of the Dominion, and I am of the opinion that the practice adopted by the Valuer-General is in accordance with the Act, but, if T am in error, it is at least an alternative construction equally open, and there can be no question that it is more consistent with the smooth working of the system.’’ With this observation, Mr Justice Reed has refused to grant a Supreme Court -order asked for by the Wanganui County 'Council to determine the correct procedure of the 5 aluerGeneral in arriving at the approximate values of rateable property within the hospital districts to enable hospital boards to make annual levies upon the coatributing authorities. ft was the contention of 1 lie county that the present’practice, which did not permit it to benefit from a very substantial reduction in valuation which definitely became a fact when an Assessment Court certified to a valuation roll in September, 11)82, was net within the terms of the existing legislation. ft was argued that- _ the Valuer-General must have been in a position to anticipate a big downward trend, and in furnishing to the Hospital Board an “approximately correct” valuation as a-t March 31. 1932, should have furnished figures more in keeping with the reduced total which was afterwards certified to by the Assessment Court in September, 1932. His Honor’s judgment completely

upsets those contentions, and holds that, if suc-h a 'practice was to be adopted, it would cause confusion, dn administration and would become impracticable in view of the vast amount of detailed clerical work that would be required in the Valuer-General’s office to cope with the 47 separate hospital districts of the Dominion. His Honor holds that the present practice of basing valuations on the roll as on April 1 of the preceding year and corrected to September of that year, inflicts no hardship in that what is lost this year would be gained in the next year. The application was therefore refused and costs It) guineas and disbursements were allowed each of the local bodies represented.