Supreme Court Judgment.

Southland Times, Issue 10912, 12 April 1907, Page 4

Supreme Court Judgment.

COUNTV COUNCIL, v. TUUN BULL. APPEAL DISMISSED, The Supreme Court Ucjglstrar (Mr .L U. Colycr) yesterday road Uw decision. of Mr Justice Willi'ama iu the appeal caso Southland County Council v. John Turnbull, liean.l "at the March sittings of the Supreme Court in Invercargill.-Mr «■ Macalister appeared for the. nppelUvuls, and air W. F. Inder ior respondent, the decision, reads a— In this case the Southland County Council appeals from the decision ot the Magistrate at Invercargill. The Council sued the respondent for rates as owner of a property. The Magistrate decided that he was not liable on two grounds : iVstly. that he laid already paid alVo-aites properly levied, and secondly, that there had berm no proper demand as. required by tho Statute. Section «ot the Government Valuation of Land Act Amendment Act, 1900, provides that a .district valuation roll is to bo prepared which is to sat forth in respect of each separate property the particulars sped (ic'd. Cne of these particulars is the name of the owner of the laud and the nature of his estate and interest therein. By the interpretation clause, section -. " owner means the pt;.irson who, whether jointly or separately, is entitled to any estate or interest in laud. " Lund ” by the same clausa mean's and includes all land, tend, mauls and hereditaments and all chattel or other interests therein. Mr Turnbull, who was entitled in foe to certain lands, leased KM acres, part of them, for 49 years to the Wai'kakft Goldminiug Co. at a peppercorn. rent in consideration of u premium of £IOOO and certain shares iu the company, he to have u right to cultivate such parts of the land demised ufi the company might not require, ior mining purposes. the interest of the Waikaka Co. was a chattel interest in land . anti was, therefore, “ land " within the definition given iu the A»rt. The company should have accordingly been put on the , roll as owner of that* interest. TKyt this : should have been done is shown by the . case of Dutlrie v. -th.c Valuer-General (2d N.Z.L.R., 3BS). In that case Mr Dulhio nfipeaml on the roll an the owner” ot a lease for 12 years, and the question ' was how the unimproved value of his ini' terest was to he ascertained, but it was * never for a moment questioned that, he ' was properly put on as owner. That the r company is an occupier, of the laud leafed ‘ to it within the meaning of the Hating ! Act. 139-J 1 , and is. therefore, properly 011 • the roll as occupier is no 'doubt true, but it is also owner of the chattel interest ; and should have been placed cm the roll ‘ as owner by the terms of sec. subsection 1. of the .%d of 1900. That Mr

Turnbull is not the "owner” ’of that interest. uccortling to the definition oi " o-v'-'ner " in the Act is perfectly plain, and lit ought not to Have; been placed On the roil as owner.*- He is put oi: the roll as owner oi an Interest in the land which lie parted with io a company and which remains the property oi the company. The definition o£ •'owner 11 in the Hating Act. 1894, differs from that in the Act oi 1900. By the second •action oi the Art of 1894 - owner,” oi any ratable properly mentis ” the pfrsor entitled for the time being to receive the rack-rent, thereof.” By the Government Valuation of Hand Act', 1390, and tb. Amendment Art of 1900 the district valuation roll is to be the valuation r0.,1 for tlie purpose of the Rating Art. 1894 and by the twenty-ninth section oi tin Act of 1900 every- rate is io be levied in accordance with the entries appearing it it. Whether or no the. definition o' " owinr " in the Hating Act has beer superseded for rating i urposea by the definition in the Act of 1900 is by m menus clear. If it lues not, Uowe'V-r. Mi Turnbull was not ■■owner” under th< fating Act of 1 '94 oi the 104 acrei leased because he was nor entitled Toi the time being.to receive the rack-rent o it. but was entitled to to reco-ivo a pop percorn- rent only. If Ins interest in tin property had been that of n person entitled to receive the rack-rent that interest wcuild require io be. stated in- iiu roll or clause oi the Act oi 190C>. Th. Act contemplates that for every iutorosl in land there is an owner and that Hit name oi owner and the nature of lu» interest is to be placed or. the roll. The*.interests are to appear in respect oi each separate property, that is. each eeparnli piece of land and the total oi the nat affile values of the ’different interests make up the total ratable value of the p-.ec- oi land. There is nothing in the Act. however, to suggest that the owners of nifferent interests in the same piece o; land are to appear on the roll os owners of anything metre than their several and particular interests. Tn the pros>-nt Cas>. Mr Turnbull appears on the roll athe owner of .199 acres wlHfcffit .qualifiestion, that i« as owner in fee. and hj; also appears ns occupier of the 9tf.uK land. On this he has paid His fates. Hi appears also on the roll and is rated as owner of a chattel interest In part oi the- same land. This is wro-ng on thci face ot it.- If Mr Turnbull owns the fee of the land ho cannot in law own a chattel interest in it. That Interest must brtong to somebody else and it did in fact belong to somebody- else, viz., the WaiUlWa Co. Mr Turnbull having paid the rates on his interest in the land oi which He appears by the valuation roll to bo the owner cannot now bo charged with rates on an interest in land of which ho was not the owner and of which, though he is named on the valuation roll as owner, the roll itself shows he could not be the owner. That is sufficient to determine the lease in favour ot the- respondent, but it is as well to consider the other questions raised. The forty-sixth section oi the Hating Act. H?94.. enacts tihat a demand for any rate shall be made in writin . in the form or to the effect set forth in the schedule purporting- to b" sighed by any person ’duly appointed by tin local authority to ’collect rates. The ’demand in the present case was made oil a printed form, the particulars being filled up in writing i:; the mafiner indicated ir the schedule. At the foot of the demonic and [Tinted as part oi the printed font were the words. "W. G. Fox, County Collector of Ratos.” There was no othei signature. The question is whether H purports to Ire signed as required ny tin section. The object of the provision U my ouinion. is that the demand should U authenticated -as coming from the porsoi authorised to collect the rates. In thf case of Brydgeo v. T>lx (7 T.L.R., 215) it was held by the Quoon’s Bench Division that a notice under tne 2tt'Ctb section of the English'- Public Health Act, 1R75, with a printed signature of th< town clerk was sufficiently signed. when the object was to authenticate ths notio as' comiaig! from him-; '.Here the demSihd -i; not required to be signed but is to purport to be signed. The meaning of thf word ” purport ” was discussed in thf judgment in In re Broad (1901, 2 ch. 86) by Judge Kokcwich. The printec name here conveys to the mind ot the person who receives tire document thal it is intended to ropreaenl the sigifalun oi )V. G. Fox, the collector, though 11 may not be his actual signature. That i, dqufvalent to saying that it purports tc be signed hy- -him. The judgment of the Magistrate must', however, be sustains on the other ground and the appeal dis missed.