i
May 19, 1900.
On the Council resuming the Bill was rend a third time and passed.
PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. On the motion of the COLONIAL TREASUREE, seconded by the AOTING COLONIAL SECRETARY the Bill entitled An Ordinance to consolidate and amend the law providing for the grant of pensions to the widows and orphans of deceased | public officers was read a second time. -
The Council then went into committee and the Bill was left in Committee.
The Council then adjourned until Monday, the 28th inst.
2
+
MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
At a meeting of the Finance Committee held immediately after the Council Meeting. the Acting Colonial Secretary presiding, the following votes were agreed to:-
A sum of $5,000 in aid of the following votes in connection with the New Territory : Balance of expenditure on Taipɔ Police
Station...
$500.00)
Wages of caretakers employed at Old Customs Station, Temporary Drafts- man, &c., for 9 months at $135 per month... Sundry stores required in connection
with above ...
1,215.00
Travelling allowances to officers, launch
hire, &o. Incidental works
143
Total
*
TI
200.00
700.00 2,385,00
$5,000.00 A sum of $200 in aid of the vote In- cidental Expenses,' Nursing Instituts. "
A sum of $1,600 in aid of the vote for the construction of the steam tender Stanley for the New Territory.
A sum of $3,292.88 for the construction of a public latrine at the Sookunpoo Market,
This was all the business.
SUPREME COURT.
May 15th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (ACTING Puisse Judge).
A RATING APPEAL.
This was an appeal by Mr. R. Shewan, acting as attorney for the owner of the premises kuown as Rose Hill, Caine Road, for the refund of certain rates paid in respect of Ross Hill last year.
CHINA ÖVERLAND TRADE REPORT,
of the premises.
On the 4th October. notice was given to the Colonial Treasurer February, 1900, a refund of the rates was claimed that the premises were vacant, and on the 3rd | for the previous year. On the 14th February a letter was received by Mr. Shewan from the Colonial Treasurer, Mr. Thomson, stating that his application for a refund of rates bad been examined and 878 had been allowed, and that if he would sign the receipt enclosed that sum the three quarters ended Dec. 31st not having would be paid to the messenger. The rates for been refunded Mr. Shewan put the matter into the hands of his solicitors. Messrs. Deacon and Hastings asked for an explanation, and the re- because the rates were not paid in advance, ply they received was to the effect that it was nothing being said of the points now raised by the other side,
$47
pointed forsuch payments to be notified quarterly by the Treasurer in the Gusste. The notions fourth quarter of 1899 were payable in advance tion in the Gazette stated that t Intan for the on or before the 31st of October, 1899, and ex- pressly notified that "no refund of rates on va- cant tenements will be granted unless such rates have been paid during and within the month of October." It was clear, therefore that the statute made these rates “due" during the first possible to contend that a payment not made month of each quarter. It was, therefore, ime until the 11th November that was to say, during the month after October and after the rates were due—was a payment in advance On previous occasions no doubt refunds had within the meaning of the Rating Ordinance, been obtained, but the applicants for such refunds had complied with the ⠀⠀ require- began making refunds of rates where the ments of the Ordinance. Once the Treasurer: requirements of the ordinance bad not been complied with, chaos would replace order, and everybody would be asking for refunds if they thought they had any moral claim, without taking the trouble to comply with the condi- tions precedent imposed by the law.
The Attorney-General said that the question raised was whether the rates of Rose Hill onght to have been refunded by the Colonial Treasurer for the last three quarters of 1899. No question arose as to the first quarter, because the rates were paid puring the first month of that quarter in accordance with the require- ments of the law and the Government notifica- tion of the 28th August, 1896. Therefore on due application to refund being made such refund was granted by the Treasurer. As regarded the second quarter and two months of the third quarter, a refund was asked for on the ground that the premises were occupied by military officers, hit the rates were not paid within the first month of these respective quarters, and the terms of the Government noti- fication before referred to not having been com- plied with the Treasurer declined to granted such refund. It was not competent for the petitioner to raise in this petition any question of whether the premises ought to have been rated at all,, because if they were improperly rated an appeal against such rating could have been laid under section 15 of the Rating Ordinance of 1883 within the time mentioned in that Ordinance. The only question before the court on this petition was whether the Treasurer was right in declining to make the refund, and the Attorney-General contended that as the payment was not made within the first month of the quarter the Trea- surer was right in refusing to make the refund. As regarded the last month of the third quar- ter, namely, September, and as regarded the based on the ground that the premises were fourth quarter, the application for a refund was unoccupied during these four months. The Attorney-General submitted that the fact that the appellant's Portuguese clerk and his numer- for the last three months of the year showed ous family were allowed to live on the premises that the property was not really unoccupied, for continued as caretaker while the Portuguess a gardener was left there as caretaker and was
clerk lived there. But assuming that the pre- the Ordinauce, section 35 regulated refunds. mises were unoccupied within the meaning of By the first sub-section of section 35 the owner of a tenement was required to give notice to the Treasurer that such tenement was vacant not later than the 15th day of any month from the first day of which it was intended to claim such refund. As regarded the month of September this was not done, and by section 37 the Ordin- should not ance expressly declared that the petitioner not been given, and threw the burden of Recover if such notice had proof upon the petitioner. Then again, sub- section § of section 35 required the applicant for a refund to apply to the Treasurer in the form under Schedule D of the Act for such refund within 15 days after the expiration of the quarter during which tho tenement had been unoccupied. In the present case this was premises, paid the rates and regularly ob- the third of February, 190). Moreover and tained a refund of the rates from the Col- this was the ground specially relied on by the onial Treasurer on the ground that the pre-Treasurer-the rate was not paid in advance as mises were in military occupation. On the required by section 34 of the Ordinance. It 31st August, 1899, the Royal Artillery Mess was contended by the counsel for the petitioner as moved to the present quarters, and the pre- that the rates were paid in advance because Mr.- Shewan put-in one they were paid before the end of the quarter, Caker. That clark had but the clear meaning of payment in ad
lived with him on must be payment before the amount was due.
rent, they being Bection 31 required that all rates There was no paid quarterly in advance at the Treasur coonpation whatsoever to the ownerɛ he first month of such quarter,
Mr. M. W. Slade (instructed by Messrs. Descon and Hastings) appeared for the appli cant and the Attorney-General (the Hon. W. Meigh Goodman), instructed by Mr. Bowley appeared for the respondent.
Mr. Slade having read the petition, an- swer, and replication, said the facts in this case were really of the simplest description. In 1893 one of the principal Secretaries of State for War took a lease of the ground floor of Rose Hill, the right of way to the upper floor being reserved. Then a lease was taken of the upper floor on behalf of the officers of the Royal Artillery, together with a right of way through the ground floor. These leaseS were both made in 1893, commencing on the 1st November: They were for one year only, but the parties continued to hold on to the premises until the 31st August, 1899. The monthly rent for the ground floor was at first $125, it being subsequently raised 10 per cent. to $137.50. The rent for the upper floor was at first $75 and
was subsequently raised 10 per cent. to $82.50. During the continuance of this lease
|
|
Mr. Slade having replied,
His Lordship said he would reserve his decision.
16th May.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR JOHN
Carrington, KT., C.MG.
(CHIEF JUSTICE,)
SANDICO AND OTHERS V. WILDMAN.
This was an application arising out of the case of Sandice and others v. Wildman, The plaintiffs were four Filipino leaders, Theodoro Bandico, Vito Bellarmino, Arcadio del Rosario, and Galiamo Apacible--the defendant being Mr. Rounsevelle Wildman, U.B. Consul-General, The claim was for certain moneys alleged to have been lodged with the defendant.
Wilkinson and Grist) appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. Franois, Q.C. (instrusted by Messrs. and Mr. Slade (instructed by Mr. Brayne) for the defendant.
sed. On the 4th July last year the court made an Mr. Blade said he moved that this suit be dismis- order that the plaintiffs should answer certain in terrogatories." Two months were given in which September, no answers having been filed, a far- to answer these interrogatories. On the 9th- ther application was made and two months far- ther were granted. On the 3rd November, that swers were filed by Dr. Apacible, but a further was four months after the order was made, an- extension of time was asked for on behalf given to Sandico and Rosario and three of the other three, two months being
27th a further order was made, giving two- without anything being done, and on February months to Bellarmino. These periods expired -
months more time. On April 27th, the an- swers being still unfilled, a further extension The plaintiffs had had nine months and three was asked for, but was refused by his Lordship, weeks in which to answer these interrogatories. His Lordship's order refusing any further time on the 27th April had not been appealed from, and be submitted that the plaintiffs were in mitted that the plaintiffs had shown a want of “ default. Under these circumstances ha subs due prosecution, and his Lordship, by section 49 of the code had power to dismiss the petition for want of a prosecution, Continuing, Mr. Mlade said this was a suit by four plaintiffs saing jointly. The order of the court that all four plaintiffs should order was not appealed against. The p exonsing themselves. Therefore that joint order, binding on all four, he con that it was necsssary for the due prose the case that the answer should be put in.
of all four had filed answer
answer.
Mr. Showan, on behalf of the owner of the not done, the application not being made until | tiffs had nocepted that order and filed afuldayTMA
thre
intiffe
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.