TEST CASES

Waikato Times, Volume 113, Issue 18875, 20 February 1933, Page 7

TEST CASES

BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

FOOTWAYS AND GRASS PLOTS. DIVISION OF LIABILITY. PALMERSTON NORTH, Saturday. With the consent of counsel the appeal of Mrs Doris Martin against the decision of Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., fining her £5 and costs for riding a horse upon a prepared and cultivated street grass plot, has been removed to the Full Court at Wellington for determination. Proceedings were taken against Mrs Martin on the ground that the action was contrary to the city by-law. The magistrate said the matter was not free from doubt, but in his opinion the by-law was not unreasonable or ultra vires. The case is regarded as a test of the validity of the by-law and an appeal therefrom set down for the Supreme Court here. Another matter relating to the City Council was also referred to the Full Court. The council applied for declaratory orders interpreting the provisions of Section 179 of the Municipal Corporations Act defining the liability of owners of lands and buildings fronting footways and channels. Several issues had been raised for determination, among them, whether •the time limit prescribed by Section 77 of the Rating Act applies to the proceedings for the recovery of amounts imposed under Section 179 of the oilier Act; and if not, what is the limitation of time to bring proceedings? When does such period ol' limitation commence to run? What is the limitation after the completion of the work for passing a resolution imposing onehalf eosts of the works on the owners? The question is also raised as to the definition of owners, and if works aA paid for out of loan moneys is the council entitled to charge owners fronting footpaths with part construction costs; also if the works ace subsidised by the Government, can full half cost be . charged, or must there be an allowance proportionate to the amount of the subsidy?