RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIII, Issue 9542, 10 November 1881, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Bth November, 1881

(Before E. Hardcastle, Esq., E.M.)

JUDGMENT. — In the case of the Corporation of "Wanganui v. Waring Taylor. His Worship gave judgment as fol-

lows : —

Purxell v. Taylor. — In this case, while a former tenant occupied part of section 300, rates amounting to £15 9s became due, and it is said the Corporation has obtained judgment against niin for them. During defendant's tenancy, rates amounting to .£l2 10s became due. The Corporation sues for the whole .£27 10s. Defendant pays in £12 10s, and denies liability for the remainder. £8 Ss of the disputed £16 9s become due more than two years befcre action took, and therefore under section 60 of " The Eating- Act, 1876," cannot be sued for. The actual sum in dispute thus becomes £7 Is. The question of liability rests on the meaning of section 50* of " The Eating Act, 1876," as amended by section 7 of the Act of 1878. "Under the Act as amended, the Corporation could not now recover this sum against the owner, and if it can now recover from the present occupier he can deduct the sum paid from his rent, and thus practically make the owner liable ; in fact, it is the owner's liability that is now being decided in this action, to which the owner is not a party. Taking it for granted that occupiers are primarily liable for rates, section 53 provides that after three months default by occupier the Corporation may, within four months then next, recover from owner if it commences proceedings within six months of the. rate becoming due. Thus it seems the Corporation has two remedies of different extent. It has its full remedy against the occupier, as in ordinary cases of debt, subject to the limitation in section 60. And it has its lesser remedy against the owner, which exists only sub modo. Section 54 provides that any rate due by an owner and unpaid for three months, may be recovered from the then eccupier, who if he pays may deduct it from his rent ; and section 55 protects such^occupier, if he discloses the owner's name, from having to pay for owner's rates more than he owes to owner for rent. These sections do not seem intended to impose any permanent burden on the subsequent occupier, but only, through him, more conveniently to get at the owner in cases in which the owner is himself liable. But section 7of the amended Act of 1878 extends the provisions of section 54 to all cases where any rate is due by a former occupier. Two constructions of the section as amended are contended for. One would virtually render the owner liable to the same extent as the occupier, and repeal by implication all the limitations of section 53 in his favour. The other argues that it is only the provisions of section 54 that arc "extended," and that as those provisions only create a limited remedy in the first place against nonpaying owners it is only a remedy subject to the same limitation that is " extended" to non-paying occupiers. I incline doubtingly to the latter opinion. The position under the Act as unamended is plain. The owner could only be made liable for the six months last past. If the intention of the amendment Act was to increase the owner's liability, it would have said so plainly, failing which I cannot take it that Corporations are empowered to neglect their rate-collecting for two years, and then call on owners to pay the arrears. Itis hard to say what the exact extent and limit of the two sections as read together are. I have only to say that I do not think they amount to this. Judgment for defendant, with costs. As the amount claimed is over £20, although in my opinion wrongly so (see section 60), and although reduced within it by payment into Court, probably leave is not required to appeal, but X think it a, case very suitable to be finally settled b/y a higher Court. — Mr Bamicoat, for the Corporation, then asked leave to appeal, which was at once granted. Undefended Cases. — Judgment by default was given for plaintiffs in the following cases : — Thos. Mackey v. Jos. Stitt, claim £.1 19s 7d, costs 20s, professional fee £1 Is— Jos. Chadwick v. Elizabeth Young, £6 9d, costs 11s, professional fee £1 Is.

S. Wrigiit v. E. T, Blake.— Mr. Barnicoat for plaintiff, Mr Hutchison for defendant. This case was a claim for £50 in respect of certain sections at Norman by sold by defendant to plaintiff some years ago, but which had never been handed over to plaintiff, but had been seized under a writ of fi fa and sold. The plaintiff stated that he had been unable to register the transfer for the sections. Mr Hutchison called Mr F. M. Betts, who had acted as solicitor for the defendant in reference to the sale of these and other sections. Mr Bctts deposed that the defendant was, at the time of the sale, in difficulties, and he had informed the purchasers of sections that unless they registered their transfers at once they would run a risk of losing their sections. The plaintiff had been, with others, notified that it was necessary that his transfer shoiild be registered, and Mr "Wright had neglected to do so until too late. — Judgment was reserved. E. J. Womb v. H. Owen. — This was an application to hear the evidence of Mr Wells, painter, of Wanganui. The plaintiff did not appear and the application was struck out.