OBJECTIONS TO LOAN.

Thames Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 17764, 11 December 1929, Page 5

OBJECTIONS TO LOAN.

MANGATARATA ROADING.

THREE THROWN -* OUT,

NO JURISDICTION IN TWO.

Part of the time of Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., was occupied in the Thames Court yesterday in hearing objections by property owners to their inclusion in' the special rating area in connection with the Mangatarata metalling loans.

Mr E. L. Walton appeared for the Hauraki Plains County Council. The objectors were: H. F. Purnell, of Thames, on the grounds that he alleged that he received no benefit from the loan. . George J. Coxhead, of Miranda, on similar grounds; Ivy M. Marshall, of Waitakaruru, on similar grounds;

Jean M. Dalgety, of Pipiroa, ana Donald Dalgety, also of Pipiroa, on similar grounds. In the case v of Robert A. Coxhead, three grounds of objections were raised:—

(1) That he already had a frontage to a metalled road; (2) That the benefits which would accrue'were not commensurate with ■the proposed charges; (3) That the property was not sufficiently productive to carry the

burden of the increased rating. Mr E L. Walton, on behalf of the Hauraki Plains County Council, explained the necessity for the loan, which was to provide for the metalling of certain road? in > the Mangatarata district, and which had been duly advertised according to law. The above persons had duly lodged objections to be included in the. rating area. In reference to Messrs Purnell and Coxhead’s objections, these were not in accordance with the regulations, which stated that objections must be lodged .in duplicate. While Mr Purnell had sent in a duplicate the duplicate copy did not have the exact wording of, the .first’ copy, and was received a day late. He therefore considered that the objections were irregular and quoted authority in support of his contention.

Mr E. J. Clendon, on behalf of Mr H. L. Purnell, said that the property of Mr Purnell was wrongly defined on the roll. Mr Clendon read Section 3 of the Act, which dealt with objections to being included in a roll. The question under review was simply an administrative . mattep and not- mandatory. In reference to the objection not being in duplicate, counsel considered the objection by Mr Walton a frivolous one, and he pointed . out that no hardship or inconvenience had been placed on the County Council. The Magistrate, Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., said that under the regulations Mr Purnell’s objection was irregular. The regulations must be complied with and he ruled that he had no jurisdiction on the matter. The objection was therefore ruled out.

Mr Walton said-.that a s this disposed of Messrs Purnell’s and Coxhead’s objections, there only remained the objections of Miss Marshall and Mrs Dalgety and Donald Dalgety. Mr H. Purnell, on behalf, of the objection of Miss Marshall, said the road access to her 'property was metalled, and any further metalling of a side road would be of no benefit to the objector.

His Worship said that if that was the only reason for the objection he would have to strike it out. Although the front road was metalled the improvement l of' other roads would be of some benefit to the property. Mr A. Bryan, on behalf of Mrs J. Dalgety and Donald Dalgety, pointed out that the only access for these settlers was by a clay road of two and a half miles, before they would derive any benefit from the proposed metalling- loan.

The Magistrate maintained that some benefit would be derived, and thought that these settlers should be included in the rating area The result of the ft™ objections was that, three were thrown out, and with the other two th e Magistrate said that he had no jurisdiction. In giving his -decision, the Magistrate remarked that no local authority could progress unless all settlers in t e defined area were included in special rating areas.