SALE OF LAND

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 66, 18 March 1936, Page 6

SALE OF LAND

STEPS BY COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING UNPAID RATES CASE FOR ATEEAL COURT WELLINGTON, March 17. Foe Appeal (‘ouit t? day is engaged in bearing the case of Walters and an »-ther Malfroy and Manakan County. . rhe mortgagees of part of the land Innned by James Paterson Sinclair are I appealing from the judgment of Mr Justice Fair, delivered at Auckland on October 7. 1935. refusing a writ of injunction to restrain respondents from selling Sim ian land as a whole for unpaid rates. The farts arc that .Sinclair in the on net of 172 acres of land in Manakan •'•Minty, the plan of which shows three pir».-es. Giving to I’is failure to pay rates the Manakuu County Council obtained judgment for these, and touk *tcp- to sell the land under the provi--ion.s nf the ILating Act. 1925. The land was advertised for sate as .« . hole, but appellants objected to this and r ■mmerired pro.-ceding- in the Supreme •'on t to prevent the respondent Mali t roy trori pr f '»-eeding with. the sale. Th.* Manakan •'•■tintv C«»ur.rH was then by con-ent joined as a further respond ent. an! th** first named respondent has s.nre taken no part in the proceedings. I’m grounds for appellants’ objection v t re that the land had been wrongly valued as a whole, and that the entries I in the \ aiuati'-n mil and the rate book, as well as all subsequent steps taken. I were without jurisdiction. The three I pi ere.-* of land are all mortgaged, eavh Ito different sets of mortgagees. Appel|lant< further tend that the eff.-ct |of j-oiiing the land as a whole will be Ito the burden of '.he rates of lone pie<-r, which is mortgaged to the ! State Advanees, nn to the other p’e<-es. ’i In the alternative, it is claimed that ! a- the re.-pondent Malfrov proposes to Eel’ something other than the unenrumJ bored fee simple cf part of the land this would be outside the powers given ;by section 7 of the Rating Act. 1925. i Mr Barrowelough concluded his subI missions on behalf of appellants this [afternoon and was followed by Mr : Prendergast, w ho appeared for respondent. In submitting that the land had been rightly valued as a whole, Mr | Prendergast contended that the main . factor wa.- the use to which the propeny was put. and that if it were used 'a- one farm it was one propertv, even ! though it was divided by roads? Fhe ease was adjourned until to-mor-row .