RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 7983, 29 September 1887, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, September 28. — Before O. B. Raweon, Esq., R.M. THE HABBOR RATES. New Plymouth Harbor Board v. Thomas Bayly. Claim £49 4s 10d, representing a half-year's rate levied on pleintiff's land by the Harbor Board, at |d in the £. There were five others involved, namely: — John Pnrdie, £1 8s 3d ; Alexander Sutherland, £12 4s 4d; James Livingstone, £7 14s 6d ; Hugh Irvine, £8 11s Id ; John Milne, £3 13s 7d. These persons belong to an association, formed to ' resist the rates, and Mr. Govett — instructed by Mr. Travers — argued on the following grounds for the defence :—": — " On the part of the defendant I object to the claim in this action, on the following grounds : I—That1 — That the rate of which the amount sought to be recovered from the defendant forms part, is involved as a whole because the same is aa a rate at a greater amount in the £ than the plaintiff board is entitled to levy. In support of this contention I call attention to the following facts : (a) By the New Plymouth Harbor Board Ordinance 1875, Amendment Act 1877, provision is made under which the plaintiff board may levy an annual rate on the lands described in the schedule to the said Act, for the purposes mentioned in section 15 of the said Act ; (&) the rate sought to be recovered is a rate made for the purposes of the said Act, and is made under its provision ; (c) the lands of the defendant which have been rated, are lands within the rating district defined ii the schedule to the I Act ; (d) that the rate, levied as appears by the particulars of demand is a rate of three farthings in the pound, on the asßesaed value, which is in excess of the maximum rate authorised to be levied, looking to the proviso to section 15 of the eaid Act, and to the paragraphs 1 , 4, and 9, section 14 of the Bating Act, 1882 ; (c) The effect of this is Bhown by the following calculation : Assuming the rateable value of the property to be £500, a rate npon it at |d in tbe £ would amount to £1 11s 3d, but a rate at Is in the £on £6 per centum upon £500 would only amount to £1 10p, showing that a rate of |d in the £ on the rateable valae is in excess of the maximum iate which the plaintiff board is empowered to levy. 6—6 — That it is imperative to fix an annual value foi the rateable property to be rated, nnder the provisions of the, said Act." z Mr. Samuel contended that the first subsection of section 14 of "The Rating Act, 1882," governed the levying of the harbor rate, and that the Board has the right to accept the property tax valuations, and to levy a rate of three f arthingß in the £ upon the capital value, instead of making a new valuation. The fourth sabsection relied upon by Mr. Govett was simply to meet exceptional cases within which the New Plymouth harbour rate does not fall. It contemplated tho levy- i ing of water rates and other rates, in connection with which there were special circumstances necessitating the making of an annual valnation. Bat there was no such need in connection with the harbour rate ; tbe Board had acted within its powers ; and therefore the fonth sabsection of the Act had no bearing upon the matter. Hie Worship reserved his decision to Friday at 10.30 a.m.