EXEMPTION CONFIRMED

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1924, 21 October 1926, Page 5

EXEMPTION CONFIRMED

NO RATE® P»OM CONVENT. DECrsrON OF AFPiEAL. COURT. At the meeting of the Te Awamutu Chamber of Comimercss on Tuesday evening passing mention was made of the fact that the land 'fronting Alexandra iStreet from Mujtu 'Stre|et junction Ito lD«r IBlundell's property was not contributing rattes to the Borough Council. IPart of th« area helongs to the Education Department, and is occupied by'the headmaster of the'local IschoOl. The nexlt belongs to the Roman Catholic , almthoritites, being occupied b|y. the church, the convteht school, and • the presbytery. It was mentioned that a case bearing on fc'hia question whether portion of the area shoulld pay rates was being dealt with by the Court of Appeal, and a decision was teKpected. Yesterday morning advicja was received) in Te Awamutu that the decision had been given in Wellington )the previous daiy. lit was in thisi case of Pjeters versus the mayor and burgesses of Cambridge, heard on 4th Odtober, following an apoeal from the judgment of thla' Chief Justice, who had held in favour of the borough authorities..

Tb/e Appeal Court came to the conclusion thalt " the convent is 'ussd exclusively for the purposes of a school. The question of spiritual exfercitees there carried, ort by the sisters has nothing to dp with the matltter of the pradti'cal work of tne "sisters, which; solely or primarily, (excluding trifling occupations, consists of tea'ching. This heing so, 'the conV-ent as a building in Which the teachers live is deemed to be part of the school, and therefoce leixempt from the Rating Act."

His Honour Mr Justice McGregor gave a dissenting judgment, and stated that the magistrate was right in holding that th(& convent was not exempted. His Honour statSsd that the convert .property was vested in the sisters of tbe mission, while the school was vested in th!& .bishop. The buildings were-used for a'convent and not for a school,' the convent .being used for only trifling purposes connected with a school. If .the section read that /premises used leixClusdvely for a convent were .exempted, instead of property used exclusively for a school, then there wo>uld be 1 no question that this property would come within such exemption. : To hoid|, then, that the pr,eimises w)ere used exclusively for a school led to the absurd conclusion that the. building was alt one and the same time used exclusively for a convent and a school. For that reason His Honour held that this exemption could - not 'toe; allowed.