SPECIAL LOAN ORDER.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 December 1924, Page 10

SPECIAL LOAN ORDER.

RATEPAYER’S OBJECTIONS.

PATJ-A OOUNIY ROAD WORK, SUPREME COURT ACTION. The requirements of the law with regard to the creation of special rating areas and the raising of special 'loans by local bodies were discussed at some length in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Robert Bremer, farmer, of Waverley, asked Mr. -Justice MacGregor for a writ of certiorari against the Patea County Council, the subject matter of the dispute being the creation of the Otauto special rating district and the raising of a loan of £2900 for the metalling of the 'Huka - tere and Otauto Roads. It was contended that the requirements of the Local Bodies Loans Act had not been fully complied with. Following the discovery of a fresh point in the defence, which may possibly affect the whole matter a-part from the other legal points raised by both the -plaintiff and the defendant council, His Honour ordered the case to stand over, giving the defence - permission to set up the fresh facts in a statement of defence and a further affidavit. The case will probably 'be continued after the vacation. Mr. iF. C. Spratt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. C. H. Weston, with Mr. T. E. Roberts, for the Patea County Council. CASE FOR PLAINTIFF. The first of the grounds upon which it was asked that the special order creating the special rating district be quashed was that certain of the signatures to the form of consent prescribed by No. 9 of the regulations under the Local Bodie* Loans Act, • 1913, were not the signatures of ratepayers as required by Section. I6e of the Act, and that -without such signatures the -consent did not have the signatures of a three-fourths majority of the ratepayers as required by the section mentioned. It was also set out that one of the signatories was more <than six month* in arrear with his rates at the time he signed the consent and up to the date of the confirmation of the special resolution and that, therefore, he was not entitled to sign. Without this signature it was contended that the necessary three-fourths majority was lacking.

The next ground was that one of the signatures, that of Michael J. Norris, had been improperly obtained on the promise of one Patrick Dwyer that he would pay the special rate to be assessed against. Norris’ property. It was contended that Norris' consent was therefore invalid and that without his consent the majority was again lacking. A further contention was that after the special resolution had been passed, but •before it was confirmed, certain ratepayers who had signed the consent had withdrawn their consent and therefore once again the required majority was lacking. Two other grounds of objection were that the special resolution had been passed by the council without proper notice having been given of the time and place fixed for the meeting as prescribed by Section 99 (I.'C.) of the Counties Act. 1920, and that the special resolution was defective in that it misdescribed the purpose of the loan a* being for metalling for the first time the Hukatere and Otauto Roads, whereas the true purpose included the metalling of part only of the Hukatere Road.

REPLY BY DEFENCE. The defence contended .that the consent contained the signatures of the necessary three-fourths majority of the ratepayers. It was admitted that certain ratepayers, before the confirmation of the special resolution, presented a notice of withdrawal of their consent and that without this consent there would be left fewer than -the required number of consenting ratepayers, but it was contended that these consents could not rightfully foe withdrawn. It was denied that the meeting at which the resolution was -passed was not properly called and that proper notice of the meeting at which the resolution was confirmed was not given by advertisement. It was admitted that the ad-

vertisement did not name the place of the meeting.

The defence further admitted that the true purpose of the loan was to metal part only of the Hukatere and Otauto Roads, but it was denied that the special resolution was defective. It was claiincil that the purport of the loan was sufficiently described.

In the course of argument. Mr. Spratt • said that when the special roll was being compiled, Bremer had protested at the county office, but had not made formal protest within the prescribed time. He had, however, obtained promises from a number of the ratepayers that they would not sign the consent. On his. return from a holiday trip abroad he had found- that the resolution had been passed and confirmed, and that application had been made to the -State Advances Office for the loan. He had at once set the present action in motion so no time had been lost. Mr. Spratt added that while Bremer was away, his son had obtained from a number of settlers notices of their withdrawal of their consent, but the council had refused to allow the withdrawals. Bremer’s objection to the proposals lay in the fact that their acceptance would cost him and his wife about £l5OO in rates, for which they would receive no benefit at all. Counsel then proceeded to argue the law on the questions raised. RATE ALREADY LEVIED. Concerning the definition of a “ratepayer,” he contended that for the purposes of the proposals, the term meant the person whose name was actually on the county ratepayers’ roll, and also, where there were two names with respect to one property, the first-named person should vote. Counsel then

analysed the special roll prepared, coni- : paring it with the -county roll and also • the -consents obtained in support of Jus contention that the signatures obtained wore not the signature* of ratepayers as required -by Section 16e of the Act. On this point Mr. Weston contended that the ratepayer concerned in any such proposals was the person actuallypaying the ratds, and it did not matter whether he was the pefson named in the county ratepayers’ roll. He •fur--1 ther contended that a -consent once given could not be withdrawn, as it was on a par with the casting of a vote. As to the omission of the date and time of the place of meeting, that was purely

a technical objection. The omissions had hot affectwl anyone adversely.'

Following the luncheon adjournment ■. it was discovered that the council had! levied the special rate under the special; order, and it was on this point that the court took the action, stated. It 1 was - .contended that once a special rate! had been levied,, it could n,ot foe inter-' fe'reA with by the court. Hi* Honour: intimated his willingness to Accept writ-j ten argument on tins aspect' p.f tho case! and on any other unfinished points.' Costs amounting to £lO 10s were al< lowed the plaintiff for the day’s hearing.