CLAIM BY COUNCIL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18058, 7 April 1933, Page 7

CLAIM BY COUNCIL

RATEPAYERS’ LIABILITY APPEAL COURT ARGUMENT (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. In the case of the Palmerston North City Council v. Waghorn and Wrightman, the Full Court yesterday afternoon heard argument on an originating summons requiring an interpretation of a section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, which empowers a council to recover as a rate an amount up to half the cost of permanent improvements of footways, channels', etc., from owners fronting or adjoining the improvements. Action was taken in the Magistrate’s Court by the council to recover from the defendants an amount due for improvements to pathways which their land adjoined. As there were a number of actions, the magistrate asked foi an authoritative decision. The summons also asked whether the owner of land and buildings fronting a footpath was liable for the lull half cost of construction when the cost already had been paid for out of unemployment moneys. Counsel for the plaintiff was Mr. J. O’Shea, and for the defendants, Mr. M. H. Oram.

Argument was submitted by Mr. O’Shea to show that the charge was a statutory debt which could be claimed without reference to the Rating Act, and, therefore, the council was allowed a period of 20 years in which to make a claim. He submitted also that whether tho council was paid out of unemployment moneys or not did not affect Its statutory rights to half the cost of construction. Mr. Oram contended that the money must be sued for as a rate, >ind as a period of three years had elapsed since the moneys became owing, they could not now be recovered. The court adjourned.