OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18622, 28 April 1932, Page 8

OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT

WAS ADVERTISEMENT SUFFICIENT? SUPREME COURT ACTION. AUCKLAND, Thursday. Albert Beasly, farmer, a ratepayer of the Newmarket borough took action in the Supreme Court yesterday against Mr W. R. McKean, S.M., president of the Assessment Court, and the Newmarket Borough Council, asking for a writ of prohibition against Mr McKean, restraining him from signing the borough valuation roll, and for a writ against the council restraining it from striking any rate until the plaintiff’s objection had been properly heard and determined. Plaintiff said his objection had been deposited at the borough office on February 12. He did not see the advertisements, and had no notice that the Court was sitting. Ills objection was struck out because of his failure to appear. The defence contended that sufficient notice was given by advertisement twice in each of the city newspapers. Counsel for the plaintiff said the whole point of the case was whether notice by newspaper advertisement was sufficient to give an objector. His contention was that it was necessary to bring notice to him in some way personally. Counsel for the defendants argued that the question for the Court was not, the meaning of the word “notice” in the Rating Act, but the meaning of the phrase “notice of such sitting.” If personal service was required under section 28, why was it that under section 31 the Court was to sit in the place “publicly notified”? There was no alternative between personal service and public notification. Mr Justice Heniman said the point, was of interest, and he would take time to consider it.