APPEAL COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXX, Issue 12001, 19 October 1906, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

Borough of Wanganui v. Oollege Trustees. A Question of Rates. (Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON, Ocober 18. This afternoon the Appeal Court bench, consisting of Justices fetout, Denniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, began the hearing ot the case Mayor and Councillors and burgesses of the Borough of Wanganui v. the Wanganui College Board of Trustees. This case sets out that by grant from the Crown, dated 13th October, 1852, a piece of land within the boundaries of the borough of Wanganui, containing about 250 acres, was granted to the Bishop of New Zealand in trust for the purpose of founding and maintaining a school, there being certain conditions imposed by the trust, and that the land in question was now vested in the Wanganui College Board of Trustees. The Wanganui College is situated on part of the land, but the greater part is leased, and the rrnts are applied to the maintenance of the school. About 16 acres are used for school purposes, including play grounds, etc., and the borough contends that the defendant trustees aro liable under the Rating Act, 1894, to pay rates upon the whole of the 16 acres so used, except the piece of land upon which the school chapel stands. The defendant trustees contend that besides land on which the chapel stands 4 acres of the 16 acres are not rateable property within the meaning of section 2 of the Rating Act, 1894, being exempt under sub-section 7of the said section. The questions for opinion of the Court are — (1) Whether the whole of the 16 acres (except the land occupied by the chapel) are rateable, or whether 4 acres are not exempt; (2) if 4 acres are exempt, how are those 4 acres to be ascertained? Mr. T. F. Martin appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Martin Chapman for the defendants. Mr. Martin, in opening the case, stated that it depended on the meaning of exemption 7 of section 2 of the Rating Act, 1894. That exemption was in • the following words : " Lands and buildings used for a school which is not carried on exclusively for primary gain or profit, but -o that within any borough or town district not more than four acres be used nnd occupied by <>r for the purposes of any otip such school " Mr. Martin rmi- | t -•'* l 'fl 4^;\t the v-oHr "but =!O thnt" irj | '1.0 o\:>n;ptiou tip.ip< "provided tliat." ! ,ivl flit if <?r,f h n - •l.'v.il hp.d -n.oro t'>aji I frmr npyp-? if- voiiH not come within Vi ■ \-nijMi n T-rrl V*e whole of the land ! would br> rateable. In the course of the argument it was remarked by the Chief Justice that he should have thought a borough would have considered it an advantage to have such an educational establishment in its midst, and would not have been so anxious to hamper it by taxation. Mr. Martin's argument was short. Mr. Martin Chapman contended that the words " but that so" in the exemption meant that four acres of land used for such school were exempt. Mr. Martin did not exercise his right of reply. The Court reserved judgment, and adjourned till to-morrow morning.