AN INTERESTING CASE.

Waikato Argus, Volume XVIII, Issue 2907, 20 June 1905, Page 2

AN INTERESTING CASE.

A matter of some interest to ratepayers and land-owners generally was dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court, Te Awamutu, on Friday last before Mr 11, W. Northcroft, S.M, Samuel Knight, of Hamilton, appealed to the magistrate under the Counties Act, ISBG, to have the names of purchasers placed ou the valuation and electoral rolls of the Waipa County for the ensuing year. Knight having recently subdivided a portion of his land and sold to several parties. Mr Swarbrick, solicitor for the council, stated that his appearance in the mutter was merely to assist the Court in the proper administration of the law, and in no way hostile to the appellant, as It made no difference to the council whose name was placed on the roll for any particular property. Tho Magistrate stated that this was the only case of its kind which had come before him for some years, and now there were many different Acta and amendments relating to the question, and which had taken him some time to look up. Air Swarbrick quoted from several Acts and amendments holding that where a property had changed hands as a whole, and the necessary notice served on the local body before tho 31st March, there was no difficulty, as the local authority had the power to alter the name, hut not to tamper with the valuation which was now entirely in tho hands of the Government Valuer-Gene-ral. Every power was now taken from the local authority and centralised in Wellington. Where there was a subdivision and the property was sold there must be a re-valuation by tho ValuerGeneral, which had not as yet been done in Mr ivnight’s sales. Until tho relative values are apportioned tho new names cannot be put on the valuation roll, and consequently cannot he put on the electoral roll of the county. Suppose these names were put on the roll—the Valuer-General not yet having made the now valuations—there is no value and consequently no vote. Under the old system the local authority had the power to make all the alterations, but now it remained to the Valuer-General to make and alter the valuations. The magistrate considered tho Counties Act was practically obsolete and not brought up to date with the other statutes. He ruled that where the properties had changed hands as a whole, and that the necessary notice had boon given before the 31st of March they were entitled to be put on tho roll, but where a sub-division was made tho parties purchasing could not he put ou the roll until there had been a valuation made,