Eating of Church Property.

Thames Star, Volume XIX, Issue 5643, 26 February 1887, Page 2

Eating of Church Property.

IMPORTANT DECISION,

After we went to press yesterday a case of some importance was heard in the Resident Magistrate's Court, before H. A. Stratford, Esq., E M., being a claim preferred by Mr A. Fleming, Bate Collector, against Mr J. Hudson, as trustee of the Congregational Church, for £11 12s 9d, footway rates. Mr Miller tor plaintiff, and Mr Lush for defendant.

John Hudson stated that he held theland in question in trust with W. C. Daldy, of Auckland, for the Congregational Church. The only building on the land is the church, whicb is 46ft wide, and faces the street, there being a frontage of 66ft. The remaining 14ft of the ground ia used. solely for church purposes. The certifi? cate under the Land Transfer Act was produced, showing the property to be Tested in J. Hudson, W. C. Daldy, aud W. Davis (since deceased).

Mr Lush eonteudfd that, acord*ing to section 37 of the Rating Act, 1876, all lands occupied by churches and chapels are exempt from being rated, and it had been shown that although the church iv the present oase

did not occupy the whole frontage, the latxl was nevertheless exempt. He alao h? id that th^ claim should have been made uuder Boroutjh bye-law 7, because the work was done during the period this bye-lHw was in force. Having since repealed this bye law by No 17, however, he miintaiopd that they couid not proceed further, as two years had been allowed to elapse before tb^y first discovered that they could not sue v >der the former bye-law. Mr Miller, in reply to Mr Luxb, contended on behalf of plan tiff—(l). That section sis of the RatiDg Act, which limit! the right of reovery of rates against the owner to six months, only applied where there was an occupier who was rated, which was not so in this ca.se, the owner being rated; (2). That although bye-law No 7 wa3 in force when the footway in Mary street was made in 1883, that byelaw was invalid, inasmuch as it fixed, the cost of footways in advance instead of after they bad bee.n made, and it had been held bad by Mr Kenrick, late JK.ftf.; consequently a new bye-law (No. 17) had to be made in 1885, and it was under this plaintiff was now suing; (3). That although two years had elapsed since the work WM dooe, no liability attached to the ownen or occupiers untii the bye-law fixed their liability in July, 1885, which is within two years; (4) As to the exemption of church property from rates, it was contented that this is not a rate in the fall sens*n>f the word, bus enly for the purpose of simplifying therecovery—in section 202 and 203 it is called a cost or charge, and no exemptions are made, but it says clearly the owners or occupiers of land adjoining the footway are liable to pay ; (5). Attention was also drawn tosection 51, of the Bating Act, 1876, which says that no objection to a rate as a zvMe should be available to prevent its recovery.-

The R.M.. reserved his decision until this morning.

On resuming at 10.30 this morning, His Worship said:—" With regard to the contention of counsel as to the interpretatioa of section 60 of the Rating Act, I am of opinion that the two years commence from the date the rate is struck by resolution of the Council, notwithstanding tbe work may have been completed before tb.at date. I find (1) that the parcel: of ground. ') in question is held by a title under the Laud Transfer Act in the name of defendant, John Hudson, and another, and ,4* situate in Mary street, Borough of Thames ; (2) that it is occupied by a church, and that there is no unreasonable vacant land around it, nor does it appear that/any part of the land is held under false pretences to evade the Rating Act; (3j that the interests of defendant and another are, equitably, fiduciary, and not in any way beneficial; that the words " rateable property" in section 37 of the Sating Act, 1876, inclnde lands and buildings subject to rates under the provisions of section 202 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876; (4) that the land in question is held under section 37 of the Rating Act, 1887, and is consequently exempt from .being rated. Judgment will ba given for defendant, with costs, £1 111."