PUTARURU RAILWAY BOARD

Waipa Post, Volume XX, Issue 1179, 8 December 1921, Page 5

PUTARURU RAILWAY BOARD

RATES SUED FOR. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The following reserved written decisfon was given by Mr H. A. Young, S.M., in the Court this morning in the claim brought by the Putaruru Railway Board Mr McCarter) against C. 11. Selby and a number of ratepayers in the Cambridge-Tirau districts (Mr Downes). The hearing was at the local ocurt two months ago. “The plaintiff claims to ■ recover from the defendant the sum of £l2 0s 7d for a year’s rates to the 31st March, 1921.

“It is contended on behalf of the defendant (1) that the railway district was not properly constituted, and (2) that the rates sued for was not validity made and levied. “It is contended that the petition referred to in section 3 of The Local Railways Act, 1914, was not as required by sub-section (1) (b) of that section publicly notified not less than one mon h before presentation in a newspaper circulating within the district. The position was publicly notified in the Waipa Post, a tri-weekly newspaper printed and published at Te Awamutu, the leading town on the proposed line of railway. The evidence satisfies me that the paper circulates within the district. I think, too, that the fact that the Governor has, after such inquiry as he thought fit, proclaimed the railway district is an answer to counsel’s' first contention.

“The rate in question was made and Iqvied by the Board in pursuance of section 44 of The Local Railways Act, 1914. The board in anticipation of its income arising from the rate, borrowed moneys from its bankers by way of overdraft. It is contended that the board did not by resolution determine which system of rating was to be in force in the district (section 4 of The Rating Act, 1908). The minutes of the board were produced and they show that the board did not specially determine by resolution which system of rating was to be in force. The hate was, however, levied on the capital value, and counsel for the defendant admits that the board took it for granted that it was rating on the capital value. “Sub-section (3) of section 3 of The Rating Amendment Act, 1913, provides ‘where a district other than a district as defined by section 36 hereof, includes more than one or parts of more than one district as so defined, the following provisions shall apply: (a) if the system of rating in force, in all the last mentioned included districts is the same, then the rates made and levied in the first mentioned district shall Be made and levied according to that system.’- The district in question is a district other than a district as defined by section 36, and according to the official maps it includes parts of more than one district as so defined. There is no evidence to show whether or not the system of rating in force in all the last mentioned included districts is the same. If the system of rating is the same then, in my opinion, it was not necessary for the board to determine by resolution which system of rating was to be in force; ft could not rate on any system other than that in force. The clerk to the board says that all legal provisions were complied with. In my opinion the onus was on the defendant to prove the facts showing that a resolution of the board was necessary. “In any case I think that section 61 of The Rating Act, 1908, is an answer to defendant’s contention. This section provides that the invalidity of any rate as a whole shall not avail to prevent the recovery of the rate appearing in the rate book to be payable by any person, unless such _in,validity is on the ground that such rate is a rate at a greater amount in the pound than the local authority levying the same is empowered to levy.

The rate sued for appears in the rate book to be payable by the defendant, and the rate levied is not a rate at a greater amount in the pound than the plaintiff is empowered to levy.

“I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff for £l2 os> 7d and costs.” On behalf of the defendant Mr Downes asked leave to appeal. His Worship granted leave to appeal for seven days, and fixed security at £lO 10s—and the amount of the judgment.