DRAINAGE RATING CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17221, 3 October 1927, Page 8

DRAINAGE RATING CASE.

ATTACK ON SYSTEM. OBJECTIONS HELD TO BE VALID. (Continued from page 7.) Norman G. Gribble, secretary of the Te Rapa Drainage Board, gave evidence with reference to the valuations. His Worship said it was obviously wrong to rate swampy land alongside a drain 'on the same basis as much more valuable hilly land on the same property, which would obviously receive no benefit from the drainage' operations.

Dealing with the objection by the Freezing Company, His Worship said the pinciple involved was the same as that in Mrs Ramsay's case. The real point at issue was the meaning to be placed on the phrase in the Land Drainage Act " property liable to be rated." His Worship said it seemed to him that the scheme of the Act was that lands were to be classified, and a classification list drawn up of lands scheduled A, B, C and D, the D lands being those not liable for rates. He considered the proper procedure was to classify all lands, and the classification into which the land fell would determine its liability for rates. Valuation Roll As Guide. His Worship added that he considered it the duty of the Returning Office to prepare a ratepayers' list from the valuation roll, taking the valuation roll as its guide as to the occupiers of property liable lo be rated. His Worship said he was told that there was a difficulty in taking the valuation roll as a guide, as the returning officer found he could not subdivide that property to be rated from that not to be rated. He had, therefore, lumped all the land-together, but for the purpose of striking a rate he had subdivided the Government valuation pro rata according to the number of acres. " Obviously," continued His Worship, " there was no authority for such a procedure, and obviously it would create an injustice in most instances." It was against that incorrect position that the present ratepayers objected. He thought their objections were valid.

His Worship said his,powers under sub-section 2 and sub-section 8 gave him authority to correct any error and make such appointment as he found to be just. He would not do that today, but would adjourn the two applications for a fortnight, after having expressed his views on the matter, to enable such valuation to be made. The cases were adjourned till 17th inst., His Worship stating that if there was no possibility of the Valuation Department supplying separate valuations, then be would apportion the rates, according to the evidence he had had before him.

Mr Stace intimated that he would allow his two cases to stand down meanwhile.

The lists of the Hillside, Woodlands and Eureka Boards were signed, no objections being, offered.