A DANNEVIRKE DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 203, 21 May 1908, Page 9

A DANNEVIRKE DISPUTE.

> .COUNCILLORS V. MAYOR. ■ 'ACTION IN THE'SUPREME. COURT/ r '■..'A.•long-startling' clisnute hptweon'.'theMayor : , and his Councillors regarding . repairs !to a certain street .within, the borough culminated ill an action ,nr tho Supreme Court , yesterday, when Mr. Justico Cooper, sitting uv-i Banco, heard argumont on tho - ~' questipri of ah application, foi--'- the issue" of ft writ. of. mandamus directing' the Mayor of . Dannovirke (Pastor Hans Madsen Ries) to put to ilio Borough Council, for decision, the Vl i6lip\ying motions and re'ebmmendations vifiw of the urgent npce'sr ■' sity-^of.,rp-gvadijigi...High; ;i .Street, ;thp: - • Council cannot 1 see its.way to abandon. -. ' -.tli'o ivork.''. '' ; '.."0-;. > v.;:B.~That'tlie. street bo cut'down to the - ' • V'proii.er level,; atjc,o,rdi)ig . to,; the "standard '•••J;.-Jevefei'- and", that ,10inches-'of Rawhiti ,tr-njotal,,he;put. down: with a coating of ; :t|i'fpo|pr four inches of ..Tauiaki^metal.' ' ;^'.Qi--T]ifit i: 'frestf' plaits; and , specifica-'- '• ;; tions be'prepared for the fe-grading of a portion of' High Street,' aiid 'tliat the ■, work be nut in hand" at once.' ,- ■ v '... .: . D.-rThe ; committeo ' would recommend ; ■. ! .i .tbaji tho.:re-formiiig; of High Street,: from - noir -the Post Offico to Barraud .Street, *{ a>'d; istaijcevgf, '. chains,: ;beVproceeded ■ 'i witliy.'ot .ohcp;..and'the- .carrying .out of tlic;Avork"be'-lef t.with tho" . . Tho .application -~\ras filed, Ijy, the Cpuii- ' -cilldrs, plaintiffs' in the action, who. stated that '-.the Mayor-had rilled out of .order tho . ,abbye : wliich -. .it was desired 7 should be considered by the ' " Council.'' Jhorphiintiffp also asked "for costs ■ of the '..proceedings:"/ 1 . 'Mr-.. Skerrett, ;K.C., and with;.him 'Mr.' Kirkcaldie,-;appeared in -.support': of -the. ap- / plication, and Mr. C. ,B. Monson and Mr. D. Mi i mdlay- opposed. -- HISTORY OF THE PASE 1 ■' ' Mr-.'Sicerrett.-reviewed'.the' history iOf the •ca's&,vHvhich-':hadV;hpV;.oulniihaWd.'in a. deadi vldck-'bbt'ween'tlio Maj-or aiid 'his Counoillprs.On: October 23, 1907, certain .resolutions were, arrivediat by the Council authoiismgrepairs to HrgmJSt'fb'e'tjSDalinevirke. The. lirst of these. (tli'ereyvpro f 'three).w4s carried 'by:eight ■votes : to'-two, - thol'Mayor : being-'ono of . the v. Sther •#p;.ni'Btioni.:Srei«: carried '• oii the voices.. . •' ; ■ , V ' Oii'J^6vomb'er, ; B; T9o7i the following . motion by the 'Mayor.was ; adopted '. j ■']■-. " That; with - regard': to :iho .'portion: of ". i':;High. Street; ; to :bo; rc-gra:dsd, ,tho_\work ; : -. :': be/dbho''by.;Cbntract/'and.; : with', this'"end'; > ; enfflhecr.'- prepare • specifica- •/. tions'tb be ready by next meeting." The specifications, jvere ,dujy-prepared <md presented, to- the Coupcii on .-November 22, when" it*: was ;'reSolved -that/ be called : foritHe.^orfe;""Thf -proposals'., of-'.the Coun.nicet ;with,. ; thexap? .' • pr'oval' Ol' the': rsitfepayers 'of, the;,- borough, • tor-^at'-'a jiicotirig''presided the ' . Mayor on December 12, 1907 i -it was resolved s.' toprotest arrailist 'the works in question being. car-ried-out.' .■'•& petition-was. accordingly presented-to the Coun- '• cil, - by-tho'Mayor j 'at-its meeting on January ■ -it, loos.;-;:\ - i is : a rpply 'to this,' a councillor- moved: — • V"' ; '"l.'.'-Tliat,'in'!viPw- of theuirgerit neeessity „' • - "j" of regr.4diiig;-.Higli Street, tho ; -Cpiincil- ' .•. its way tb'abandon work:",'; " The'mover refused, to accept .a .suggestionfrom tho.--.Mgyor:':thatv tile first part of tho motion—that .in, vioty- of the .. urgent hecesV ' sity -of 'fcgrading j;High StreetT-Be rdcleted! . ' The Maj-or ■ further': .objected to-;.pjittihg;. the' ':,inotioiii : '-on tho ground-'that 'ihe petition •- . had ' 1 6ubsequ6ntly,' this formality had 1 bepn , c.om'■'■plied 'withi lie rilled the'nibtion''out-of'order; ■ * Tlie putting 'of {liis motioir;(A) ivas specifically : for'M'n ; th'P -' apjilicatibn ''of'.-plaintiff?.. Froin .that '."date - 'epffl3- ;1 not. ■ :gpt anj' satisfaotionrcmt Mayor, ,' On January-23*, 1908, 'mptibn the .application wais'rejected.by'-theMaypr','.who refused. to : accept. ahy''niotion-involving expenditure on.-that part of ''High' Street' except', oiifr. of .. the' cost of/ordiharyl'maihtenance.,'on Febru- - , ary. .12,11905, the.' resolution .of ..'November' ;' -B,' 1907,--waS-rescinded, -but. a'motion asking • /-for ;fresh -plans and specifications to be: pre- . ' pared,' as ; sufficieht"boulc|er"s .of tho;l:ind_ speci- ' -.-fiixl ipreTiously. were hinobtainable; was . ruled ;. (unawfully, it is .alleged)' out of order. Tho ; ' -Mayor/ left the' chair, -and--his'-place was ' .. taken by- a. councillor,' who asked the Town • - Clerk.'to formally, put the motion.:. This^thp Mayor;, n'lio had. remained .in .the room, -for? ■ ; bade l(im to'do;, and tlio' councillor, himself put: tho^-motion', .w-liich-' was carried:.'; uriani- - ,mously]''C.The. minutes.:of this-.meetihg'-.wcre ■''Tead : on'Eebruary".l4;'' and ibntairied, no' reference to !v anything' which, transpired, after the Mayor- - tho- chaii* on ;February 12. In ansiybr to. :protest's ; the' Mayor-stated that / .the,procpe<liiigs'*terniiii'at«l r when'-lie vacated v thevchair, ..Tho Council-, - then .wished to ' p,lsoe, r I bn''T£Cbrd' I ':its ; protest:' regarding .tho ... exclusion., '.of • • theso- particular proceedings x .. .."from the, that.'effect, •'" •.^'jya^.''^ro^Uy v Js9lcd: : out:'of.order.■ _ A.fur- .. ■ ■~ther"'. request, iii tlio forhi ' of- a. riio.tioii, that tlie'-jecbiiimpndatjoiis of. the; Council's Works ' -to -.WW also re- ' *.v- :*ject«l,r-'hyj:th'e'VMayor,' ..'and' the councillors .. their left in'.a,body:,''.

LEGAL ARGUMENT !.' Mr.' Skerrett submitted; that the'history of '. tho- case' .suggested crass "obstinacy-'on the part'of the Mayor, .whose action was thatof • a despot. . It would, probably be argued-that th'o lVla : yor- .;had ;discretionary: powers, V and '•'.might,' if ; ho" saw fif; reject; as'Vimproper; the ' •motion'."of a>counci]lorv These, power's,;, lie , submitted,•PrcfeiTed'<;only.-J6:: suclv.;;.'prbpo"si-.-tionSV'asvmighti be ;of ,a scandalous nature. l-With 'regardvto the'-motions :which his clients ■ ."desired'' to ' liavo- .placed f before,," th'e'. Council, - lie contended that here it was.clear that tlio ' Mayor Had a duty t-ri perform;'; That', the •Mayor ', had the:;ratepayers ,\aiid their p'eti'-' : tion 'behind him' in"'this matter' was nothing to' the point.; It : -was' his' duty, as ;Mayor, to accept any motion which was in -proper form; and submit it to-the Council for disr cussion. His Honour thought that Mr. _ Skerrett ~was -hardly . justified . in .characterising. deaction as crass: obstinacy. -The . Mayor probably felt, that he was'justified in aqtion -by the .attitude-;.of the a-ate- ■ payers; as expressed at a. public-meeting held i' to.-consider the Council's proposals.:; . ■'For thc.-.defendant/ Mr. -Morison that-the, motion,'for; the issue of a. 'writ'.of /was; out; of .order. •: The, Qourt,' ho submitted, 'had''no jurisdiction: in. the mat- . ter'.'.i .T.lio was. responsible to the 'ratepayerg'.fori'his attitude,;,and as they had • publicly, endorsed his- action, there (could not ' be any suggestion of mala fides iii the matter.' Further,'"the Mayor had,- subsequently, been re-elected ,tp his civic'position unopposed. Therc'was no precedent for tho'granting: of-'sueh - ariV-apphcation,;and tho - establishing of such' a precedent would open the - . way : for : every- local .'body which might con- ■ .'-..sicler that' it' -had reason to,- be dissatisfied .." with the rnlim* ;of its chairman. argued■that tho Mayor was justified- in bis action: - Tliero-was-a prcsunipti,oiv •that the- councillors concerned in the action'.were , not altogether actuated by ' tlio desi'ro to benefit tho-public. . . , , ! .His J-lonour;,reserved his decision.