Harbor "Rates.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 647, 15 August 1891, Page 3

Harbor "Rates.

1 IMPORTANT DECISION ON MINOR ■ CASES. I At the R.M. Court on Thursday the Harbor Board (represented by Mr Warren) sued 1 Andrew Parkes for 12s 61, rates alleged to be due for 1889. 1 Mr Warren produced the rate books, showing that there had been no entry of payment, and that the demand was noted as posted on 6th November, 1889. Mr Chrisp : Oh, I object to that. Mr Booth: That ia the only evidence he can give. Mr Chrisp : Well; I object to it. Do you (Mr Warren) know that amount is due of your own knowledge ? Mr Warren : That is what the books show. Mr Booth : That is all he could show—it is for you to contradict him if you like. It is for you to show that it is not paid. Mr Chrisp : Not at all. Mr Warren deposed that the 1888 and 1890 rates had been paid. Each of the books was complete for the year, and there was no account in the books of the year following, every book being independent of the other. If everything was paid in rates for the one year the book could at any time be closed, none of the amounts due at the end of the year being shown in the next year’s book. Mr Booth said this was an extraordinary system, when the dues for previous years were not shown in the book for each current year. A man might appear to have paid for a couple of years back, and yet be a defaulter in the previous books. Mr Warren : I can easily imagine how a man would be deceived—l am really in-

clined to think that Mr Parkes is under a misapprehension. Mr Chrisp : We don’t want to know what yon think. Mr Booth: Well, we will have the defendant’s own story. Mr Chrisp, before examining the witness, said he would like to comment on the unsatisfactory position of the Board. The books produced were no evidence whatever, and it was no use Mr Warren coming there in that way when a ratepayer said he had laid his rates—it would have been better i'or the Board to withdraw the case, as it did not reflect credit on that body. They knew by the unfortunate position that body had got into the books could not be taken as proof, and if the defendant said he had paid that was sufficient defence in law. He conld not find the receipt for the year, but would show the receipts for the preceding and subsequent year. Mr Booth : That rather tells against him, because if he has kept his receipts carefully it would not be likely that only the one wanted would be missing. With respect to the animadversions made against he Board (said His Worship), they were trustees for the ratepsyers, and would be wanting in their duty if they made no effort to get in these rates which appeared to be due—of course if they could not recover in the circumstances it would be through no fault of theirs.

Mr Chrisp said he had thrown noblame on the Board—he had said nothing to justify the use of the word animadversion, Mr Booth said that to state the position was not creditable and the Board ought to withdraw tbe case appeared to him an animadversion. It seemed to the Board that the money was uot paid, and as trustees it van their place to try and obtain it. Defendant ewore that he had paid the amount of rate to Mr Bourke, in the Board office, about Christmas time of 1889. He had got a receipt at the limo, but had mislaid it. As a rule he took care of hie receipts, but if he vias going fishing afterwards he might easily get any destroyed that he had in his pocket. Mr Warren: Are you quite certain you received a receipt for this?—Yes. Mr Warren : That is all I have (o ask.

Judgment was given for the defendant. A similar case against James Mullooly then came on, the claim being for 19s lOd. Mr Jones appeared for defendant. Mr Warren asked permission to withdraw it, as it was on the same lines as the other, and the same judgment would no doubt follow.

Mr Booth said the defence might not be the same. What was the defence ? Mr Jones : Our defence is simply that the rste was paid. Mr Mullooly has found tbe receipts for the 1888 and 1890 rates ; he cannot find that for 1889, but can point to circumstances which will bear out his assertion that he paid it. Not only that, but I would go a little farther than Mr Chrisp, and show that in a number of cases where it appeared that rates had not been paid, the persons had gons aitsrwards and shown that they had paid the rates. Mr Warren acknowledged that that was so.

Mr Booth : But I do not see that the Board could take any other course. Mr Jones : I think it is tbe proper course, Mr Warren must come to the Court, though it is a little expensive to those concerned. Leave was granted to withdraw the case. Mr Jones said the circumstances were such that costs ought to be allowed to the defendant, who had been subpoenaed. Mr Booth : I do not think it is a case for allowing costs. It is partly due to his own negligence in losing these receipts. Mr Jones : Oh, you can't say that. He never expected that Mr Bourke, whom everyone had held in very high respect, would have turned out as he did. If I had to look for my own receipt I do not think I could find it, though I know I have paid the rate, and you can imagine that farmers do uot always retain all these receipts. It is a great hardship that a farmer should have to leave his work In the country, and lose time through having to respond to a summons for rates which he bad paid, I would ask Mr Warren himself if he does it Rard, though I think be has no option than to bring on the case, Mr Warren said it was no doubt hard when a man had paid the money.

His Worship then allowed witness’ expense of 10s, coach fare 2s 6J, and costs of Coqrt 3s.