The Mustcrrat Couscu, v. W. H. Foas.
Claim for Tls. 350.70, Arrears of Land-Taz, Mr, Drustoxp appeared for the plaintiffs Mr. Twoumuy (of Messrs. Fogg & Ca.) defended.
The Petition set forth that the defendant (who is absent from Shanghai), owned certain Taud registered in the British Consulate, measuring 14 mow. Fogg & Ca. are defendant's agents in Shanghai, and had up to the present time paid assessed rates on the property. At the meeting of Ratepayers in May, 1879, the Council were empowered to collect taxes at the rate of 3/10this of 1 per cent on the value of land. A subsequent provision was made for the re-assessment of laud and houses, and provisions were made for appeal. ''he assessment as made; defendant's property was valued at Tls. 77,859, and notice was given to him of the fact. " Fogg & Ca. (as his agents) appealed to the Appeal Committee, but the valuation was upheld. The Council therefore notified the defendant that the assessment was made, and demanded 4-year's tax under the terms of the resolution, viz., Tls. 116.90, which Fogg & Ca. refused to pay At the annual meeting in May, 1874, the Ratepayers again authorised a similar tax, and demand notes were presented to Messrs. Fogg Ca, for is, 116.90 for the half-year ended 30th September, and again for the half-year to Slst March, and again refused. Judgment was therefore' asked for these three sus and costs of the suit. legal existence of the Municipal Council (on The Answer set out by questioning the
rounds which are fully set forth below). It jonies that Fogg & Ca. have regularly and constantly paid the assessed rates on the land in question. On the contrary, the justice of the abatement now claimed was adultted and allowed for a considerable time by former Councils; and if much abatement had been allowed uow, there would have been no cause for the present action. Defendant, has always been willing to pay onan equitable asexsment The legal status of the Council being denied, that body could not cause a Tegal and binding assessment to be made. But even if the status of the Council is granted, the procedure of the Assessment Commuiittee is impugned.
"On the contrary, the Assessment Committee, appointed Ly such body proceeded no further than to value a mow of land in every separate lot, or, if in the opinion of such Committee, there was a difference of value in different parts of a lot proper to be noted, the value of 8 many mow as corresponiled to such several parts, But such Committee did nob value nor did not propose to value any lot or bolding; so far from this, the Comuitteo formally and distinctly ignored any knowledge of regard to the quantity of laud in any Job lots. They simply evolved and auinounced one factor necessary to the product—the value of the land, and ignored all knowledge of the other factor, the quantity of land absolutely necessary to the product, the value of the Jnnd. The assessuient of the laud, the only record the Committee kept, shows this, and the minutes do or should show it. To supply this radical defect, the (so-called) Municipal Council or the (so-called) Secretary thereof, applied or caused to be applied tothe above factor, a perfectly arbitrary and indefinite quantity, or factor, viz., "to each lot the quantity' mentioned in the litle Deed thereof; and this they call an assessment, within the meaning of the Resolution of the Ratepayers referred to in paragraph 6th of the petition and thus was produced the large sum of Tls. 77,850 8.8., mentioned in paragraph Teh, and to this applying the factor 3/10ths, the several tax notes thereinafter mentioned in the petition. But had this been otherwise a Jegal and valid assessment, it would have been a most inequitable, and therefore, itis contended, an illegal one for the defendant, as clearly appears in letter referred to at the end of the 3rd paragraph of the tition. viz., that nearly one-half of the jand which was the subject of the (so-called) assessment lies without the compound walls of the defendant, and largely exclusively it the use of the plaiutitls as roads, water courses, and partially as foreshore, and the ownership of the defendant to which, or any part of which, the plainti(fs have repeated)y refused to admit, though constrained in the second paragraph of their petition to affiew for the purpose of the action therein instituted'
The Answer goes on to question the action of the Appeal Committee, as they refused to entertain the subject of complaint as set forth in the above paragraph, alleging that
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.