Cuthbert, instructed by the Board, objected to the list as a whole, on the grounds that it was not prepared as required as by the “Rating Act, 1876,” to prove which it was shown that no entry whatever was made in the column “If let, for what term and in what manner,” and that several of the pages of the list were not signed by the valuator. He stated that it was not because these trivial omissions were made that the Board ob jected to the list, but that the list itself was completely wrong from beginning to end, owing no doubt to the fact that Mr. Leach had not visited any property in the district with the exception of the Lowcliffe estate and perhaps one or two more, con sequently the list was not a true and faithful valuation, and the Board not wish ing to have to pay for such work, which was really useless to them as a valuation roll, took the only legal steps in their power to have it set aside. What the decision of the Court on this point would have been is not known, as Mr. Cuthbert further proceeded in terms of the 25th section of the “ Rating Act,” to ask that the valuator be required to produce his “Declaration as Valuator,” which according to the sth section should be made before entering on his duties, and be delivered up to the local body or their clerk. Upon being asked by the Court for his declaration Mr. Leach astonished everyone in the Court (with the exception perhaps of himself) by stating that he had never taken a declaration. The Court decided that, as the tailing of the declaration was the fundamental part of the whole thing, there was positively no legal valuation made. • -

The Board at this stage, by their clerk, then handed in a list of charges, amount ing to L 9 2s. 3d., which they had had to pay for printing and advertising in con nection with the two attempts Mr. Leach had made at producing a legal valuation list, and asked that as Mr. Leach had already received 50 per cent, of the money agreed on as the price of the list, that he (Mr. Leach) should refund this money to the Board.
