WANGANUI-WAITOTARA HIGHWAY BOARD.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XII, Issue 9414, 8 May 1879, Page 3

WANGANUI-WAITOTARA HIGHWAY BOARD.

ASSESSMENT COURT.

(Before E: Hardcastle, Esq, Judge.) Mr Hardcastle said that as there were some .objections to the valuation list as a whole he had advertised that the witnesses would not be required to attend. The objections were in consequence of there having been an interregnum between the two Boards, and he thought the objections would be fatal unless the Board had an adjournment to get the list validated by an Order in Council. Mr Hutchison on behalf of the Board contended that, the objections did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court. He thought that the Court should hear the objections and the validation could 1 be obtained afterwards. Mr .Hardcastle thought that the last objection /thaltr'the,, Court r was notinithe district would be fatal. " . 2jlr r JFitzherbert,' on behalf of certain : dbjector»,eub : mitted that they should have \ a locus standi anda hearing. An adjournment for the purpose of getting the list validated 'would throw out some of these objections. • Mr' Hardcastle— Those objections are j purely technical and the effect would be j if they were carried the district woul<3 be. without a roll. The Aot was intended to . take means of providing a liat. If this laat f was set aside he did not know how another 1 would be prepared. Mr Fitaherbertr-If there are irregularitiea in' ; the former' valuation which upset Jt, surely similar irregularities Bhdnld up^et this one. If the Ist set can be upset on any, technical grounds, the 2nd- set could be also. Mr Hardcastle said that he should use every means inT his .power .to have a list. | That was the letter and the meaning of the Act. >! M Btr Fitzherbert did not see why one set of objections could not be treated the samb as another. Mr Hutchison suggested that the roll should' be gone over and examined on its merits, and then if the roll was proved a good one on all but technical grounds, apJE>liek.fci<m l iMig!ifc be made to the GoVer-nor-in-Council to have the roll validated. , I.Mr- Fitzherberf said some of the objeotors had not sent in their objections, ftSthey thought the list would be overthrown on technical grounds;

After some; further disoussionj Mr Hardcaatle said there were three classes of objection. Ist. The technical one, which; would> render the list ' void, but would be remediable by Order in Council. 2nd*. The objections of J. Currie and \ James Moore, as to the paucity of the list, which would render the list void and irremediable. 3rd; The individual claims. Aiter.iiearing the counsel, he thought he wpuld take the objections of Mr Currie and Mr Ttftoore, on , Thursday next, 15th instant, as they effected the purity of the valuation, and then if the valuation was upheld, application might be made to the Governor in Council.