Rating of School Property

New Zealand Tablet, 22 July 1909, Page 1137

Rating of School Property

His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman, sitting in Chambers, on July 15, delivered his judgment (says the Dominion) in regard to the appeal, John O'Meara (Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C.) versus the Feilding Borough Council (Mr. Martin*, which had been previously mentioned in Chambers. The appeal had been heard by his Honor in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, and had reference to a decision of Mr. A. D. Thomson, S.M. The magistrate awarded the borough the sum of £8 2s lOd for rates on certain property in connection with a Catholic school, claimed to be exempt under the Rating Act, 1908. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, with £7 7s costs, his Honor holding that the appellant had not proved his right to the exemption claimed. His Honor, in considering the application of the appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, said that the questions raised before the magistrate involved two or three distinct questions of law, which did not appear to his Honor to arise fully from the case as stated, some of which could not be dealt with on the appeal. The appellant asked for leave to appeal, on the ground that he represented the Church, which had many similar properties. This was disputed by Mr. Martin, and his Honor was inclined to think that the circumstances would vary in different cases. If he thought that the rights of the parties could be effectually disposed of by an appeal, and that other questions were likely to be settled by it, he would grant- leave to appeal. However, the borough had an interest as well as the appellant, and its interest was to have all the questions that might arise vi the action disposed of together. His Honor refused the appeal, as he did not think an appeal would settle tho rights of the parties. This refusal would not leave thf.appellant without redress in the future. He would, presumably, have an opportunity of raising his defence next

year. The borough, if asked to do so, might see fit to sue him in the Supreme Court, so that, after the evidence was taken, the case might bo brought before the Court of Appeal, or a court consisting of more than one judge. [f not, the appellant would not be without means of obtaining the same end. If the case fell within section 58 of the Judicature Act, 1908, he might find means of going direct to the Court of Appeal. If not, he might appeal -to this court in the" ordinary way, and ask to have the case heard before the Full Court at Wellington.