Cook County Council v. Barker.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 626, 27 June 1891, Page 3

Cook County Council v. Barker.

In this case, claim £2O 3s 9J, for rates on native lands, judgment had been reserved by Mr Booth until Thursday last. Mr Jones, representing the Council,, made application to have the proper name inserted in connection with one of the blocks, Mr DeLautour, he said, had given notice of his intention to object to the application to have fresh evidence taken. Mr DeLautour: You gave it up, and said you would accept judgment without it. Mr Jones: Your Worship will remember that I said if the block was not there we wou’d not claim on it. His Worship: Yes, you said the same block might be known under another name. Mr Jones quoted a law authority, bearing out his application. Under the R.M. Court Act, too, His Worship had power to call further evidence to make things clear. Of course, even the deciding of this point in his favor might not necessarily affect the judgment. Mr DeLautour said he objected that not only had counsel addressed the Bench, but the Court had reserved judgment. Mr Jones said that was just the case quoted. Mr DeLautour said the objection was that it referred the Bench’s attention to one point Without any notice— Mr Jones : I gave you notice.— Mr Jones had appeared there on the previous Court day without any notice. This was calculated to magnify one technical point. The proper course would be to apply for a new trial. At any rate it was not contended that they knew the block, and if it was not clear to them in the demand it should not affect the case. He objected more on principle ; it would be intolerable if when the Court had reserved judgment, that a solicitor should come in afterwards and say that he was going to apply to have further evidence taken. Counsel should make good his case, or accept a reverse. Mr Jones said he Considered that if he had allowed His Worship to give a decision, when he knew there was such a block under another name, he (counsel) might have been deserving of censure. His Worship sat there to hear the whole case, and he had thought that his friend would not make objection in such circumstances. However, he left it to His Worship—all he wanted was justice done, and until judgment had been given His Worship could allow any application he liked. Mr Booth: Under the circumstances I think I would be quite justified in allowing the application. It was alleged during the hearing of the case that this was one of the blocks for which defendant was liable, that the land was there, but that he had not got the proper name. When the case came on in order Mr Jones Called E, H. Featon, of the Survey Office. He produced the map register, and explained that the name of the block in question appeared on the old plan as Rangaterea—the plan was altered by the Court, and subsequently the block went under the name of Bototahi. To Mr DeLautour: The book produced was a map register of blocks before the title was issued—the only name it would be known by since the title was given would be Bototahi,

G. Grant, lately valuator for the Property Tax Department, produced his book and plan—the block was called Rangeterea three years ago. He knew it by the other name, but the name might have been changed < since. To Mr DeLautour: The book was a private one. Mr DeLautour submitted that the evidence j made no difference to the demand. If they did not clearly convey it to defendant’s mind, it did not matter what historical name the block may have had. It was not fair, he said again, that evidence should be brought on in this way, and this side issue Introduced to affect the judgment. Mr Jones said he wished to introduce no Bide issues—he only wanted it made clear as to the name of the block, Mr Barker had paid rates for a couple of years on the block, and it was his plaee to have had the name altered if be took exception to the way it appeared on the roll. Mr Booth: My mind was made up on the ease, except as to the existence of this block. If there had been no such land at all, and no area to correspond with a demand made < under another name, the plaintiff Council would have been nonsuited. As it is the defendant has been in beneficial occupation, as shown by the evidence, having derived £7O for two certain terms, and for some two years be had been paying rates on this land, which included this Rangiterea block. I give judgment for the amount claimed; costs £1 16s,