THE LOCAL BODIES OF WESTLAND.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1722, 12 April 1913, Page 8

THE LOCAL BODIES OF WESTLAND.

——- o —; 1 SOLICITOR CHARGED. > ■ CASE BROUGHT. BY, (RATEPAYER, : (By Telegraph.—Special 'Correspondent.) : Hokitika, April 11. A caso of considerable importance to ratepayers was heard in. tho. Magistrate's ■'".Court to-day beforo Mr. J. L. Hewitt, S.M., when Andrew D. D. Crawford, .a lawyer.'and .member of. tho Hokitika • . Borough Council and Westland Hospitals :«ud Charitablo Aid Board, was charged. .'on the information of Samuel Briggs (a borough ratepayer) that he did act . as a ••member of tho Westland Hospitals and Charitable Ai<l Board after ho had for- , feited his offico as a member, of tho board, v Tho parties in the" information conducted their own cases. Crawford pleaded "Not:gnilty." " Mr. Briggs pointed out that tho infor- ," (nation was laid under The Hospitals and t Charitablo Aid Institution Act, 1909, Sub;...'section 20, which enacted a 9 follows:— 1 "'Sub-section H: 'tho offico of . any mem- , liter of a hospital and.charitable aid board •Jhould become vacant if lie bo concernted or interested in any contract , mado . ~by tho board, if the payment of (or to r i)o made) in rcspoct of any such contract. . Exceeds £0 in , the caso oF a singlo contract,'or J.ID altogether : in tho case of •;■{,,wo or more contracts.".. Sub-section 2 V' provides: "That, if any person does .act ! as a member of a hospital and charitable • » aid board after ho has forfeited his office under this section, ho shall be guilty of '■ an offence, and shall bo liable, on sum- 1 : mnr.v conviction, to a firo not exceeding ' •:"{ Continuing, Mr. Brig's said that, dur- ' Sng tfie year 1912,-Eio'defendant tcis ap- ; pointed to represent tho Hokitika Borough J Council on tho Westland Hospitals find Charitablo Aid Board, such board _ being Wo of the institutions mentioned _in tho 'said Act; 'and that, during tho term of . offico-of'tho' defendant,''he did act . m his < capacity as a solicitor to do certain work for tho board'for which ho received ,1 payment of tho sum of <£25 odd, and that, ' after receiving payment of this sum, lie ; r acted as of.the board on March 'fi last and previously. Under Sub-section ;2 of Section-20 of the Act this Tendered • ihim liable to a fine not exceeding .£SO. : ... I Mr. Briggs added that ho had expericnc- " led . great difficulty in securing his information owing' to the Act . allowing only .' ■ fmembers of , tho board to have access to I their books. , ' ' ' ' „ ; Mr; Briggs callod Alfred Andrews. Town Cleric to the /Borough of Hokitika. He -.proved Mi-. Crawford's appointment;which. : nvai' admitted'-by defendant..'-' • I J. J. Peake, jun., secretary of' the i Westland Hospitals Charitablo Aid Board, gave evidence. He said that the board ■was one of the institutions under the Act mentioned. Mr. Crawford had been a member of the board since March 12, 1912, and had scted as a member right rip to | (March G, l?i'3. The finanoial year of tho •board closed on March 31 in each year.' ,Mr. Crawford had often- Veen employed by- •' the board. B'e was first employed on ' •vMay 4, 1910, in reference to the Old < -■ (Men's Reservo at Lake Mahinapu. Ho' • {was employed again on March 1. 4911. j '{A sub-committee of- the board, consist- • £ng of the chairman (Mr. T. J. M'Guigan),. ] 'ifMr. H. Bock, and Mr. J. A. Murdoch 1 'Iliad been appointed to take whatever steps ' .{they .thought advisable ,tp gefj.a.titlei.to,. -i tho .Old Men's Peserve, and on. March i, i they had, authorised'Mr.','.Crawford : to undertake the work ,of drafting the /vesting Bill v Mr. Crawford completed I ' rthat work, and rendered his.account about '" : 1913.;;This, account was for iS2S - ';r,9s. Bd. (produced). 1 ■ "■ The Mogistrato perused the bill of costs, : iwhich was .made up as follows Cost of . lfe. ffiLjifiirffiw s account, .£5 10s.; total, .£27 ss. Bd., less ] allowance XI G-.. ,£25 19s. Bd. i . Continuing, • witness, said tljat the ac- I ' count .-was passed .for payment on January, .< ■ 9, 1913, and.Mr. Crawford the 1 voucher. Somo o£ the work had been.done < in 1911, but the account had mot been i rendered until 1913. Mr; Briggs: Has Mr. Craivford done any other work?. . . Mr. Peake: Yes. 'Since Mr. Crawford 1 " has'been a member o£, the board ho has . ; / done several, jobs. He'prepared an appli-. , . cation to the Advances to .Settlers Depa.rt.■nient asking fora load. He had applied ! • ..'or the title to, tho Totara Hospital.Re- ; : »erve, and had conducted several Court ; cases on behalf of the board. . • ;Mr,. Briggs: Has he made any charge 1 1 tor "anv of this work. Mr. Peake: None whatever. ' , Mr. Briggs: What about the .£5 10s. ■ charged in the account and afterwards reduced to four guineas? !■ Mr. Peake: Oh, yes. Mr. Crawford i made a charge of &.1 4s. in connection with Blank's estate. He charged £5 10s., , ' and then an alloVance to. the board. . : , ; Mr. Briggs: Why waa the reduction i ■ ■ mado? Mr. Peake: I don't know.: Mr. Briggs asked whether it was not done in order to bring tho amount below - . that allowed by statute. 1 Tho Magistrate: It is hardly fair to say [ that. Wo must givo him crcdit for,tho ■ best motives. ■ • . Mr. Briggs: But look at Section 19, Sub- , Section, P of the Act. , v The Magistrate: Yes, until a_ man is. , ,;jaid ho is certainly conccrnal ia a con'tract, and is on interested person. : . . Mr. Briggs: That is tho very point. He ' .'had been paid ' an account for twenty ' guineas, and was certainly ah interested i , party. ; " Cross-examined'by Mr., Crawford, Mr. : , .Peake slid that tho members of tho board ;,. , jliad' appointed Sir. Crawford to carry out the work, a.nd Mr. Crawford Jiad said that ;■:. it was a question of . time, and tho bill ;■ ■. 'could not ;bo put through during 1911. f' 'Bession. Ho' said ho asked Mr. Crawford [■; for his account in 5911, as'he wanted the ' .account so. as tojkcep'. tho expenditure within the year.; It was on September. 5, £, 1912, tlmt the Bill had been appi'oved.by.. tiib board. This was ivhilo Mr. Crawford ; was a member of tho beard. On.Novemt lier 0, 191 i. Jlr. Cray-ford had reported .! that tho Bill had passed both Houses of ,j th'p Legislature, and .Mr. ;Crnw-ford ~had. '( had no business with tho'board from tho X time he had bl'comoYi'memlier. ' '' ■ |' Mr. Cjawford: Are you sure that the If .. account was <lus before my term of office? !; Jlr.; Peak said : that ,jtho;Finance Com- ■ antteo of tho board had all the accounts : .'.submitted for their consideration, but '■they Ht-ro not altogether sure of the legal : position as regarded the one in question, so they held Mr., Crawford's account, over. Hud in moving the adoption of the Finance Committee's report the,board lia<l obtained, Mr. Crawford's assurance that the account'wo? all right, and the board had accepted Mr. Crawford's explanation. , Mr. Crawford: At the last meeting of tho board did not every member say something about this action? The magistrate: Jt does not matter what tha members of tho board think about the action. It is a question, whether you have, ,or have not, broken tho law. Mr. Crawford contended that a contact was concluded when the work had been performed; and whan ho became a member ot the board he had had no contraot . with the board. His work was finished, : and that ended tho contract. There , was nothing binding in regard to • tho prico winch ho was to charge, and therefore there could be no contract. '■. , The magistrate: You ' car.not surely oruno that 7011 aro not disqualified? 'Mr. Crawford: I Certainly do. .The Mngistrato: You had not been paid, "md you were therefore concerned ijl that you were interested in your account. •(I man is disqualified according .to tho : .statute if ho is'interested in a contract, jn.nd I fold that a man is disqualified ?Irom holding a position on a board such is 'the: ono under notice wliilo interested ,(n an unpaid account, and you were con- : ierned to the extent of twenty guineas, f Mr. Crawford said that he could not i [Don'cur in his Worship's ruling. That was "hot his interpretation of the Act. Tho Magistrato eaid that if defendant's interpretation were tho .correct one, tho Act would bo a farce. A contract wad nii arrangement entered into for tJro:par- '. rying 'out of some work, and thoro waa no doubt in his mind that defendant had entered into, a contract;' t 'Addressing defendant." the "Magistrate Eaid: Why, you wero a momber of tho board, .and you were concerned and ina contract ..until you had been paid. TnKo on an;imaginary,case: A man enters into a contract before -ho becomes , a ntembor of the'board. Then lie becomes a r.iember of a board, and he may, or ho may not, uso his infiuonce to get a payment much in excess of what the work v.'n- really worth, and, until ho has been puidi JuTis an interested party to. a con-

tract. You were interested in a contract both before and wliilo you wero a member of tho 'board. Mr. Crawford said ho was not interested, bccanso tho contract had been completed, and ho rendered his account when tho.work had been finished. Tho Magistrate: - What you should have done was not to have become a uiembbr of tho Board, and still have expected payment of your bill of costs, or else you should have said, "Well. I'll be a member of tho''board, and lioro goes my money."' Until'a man Ims been paid, and in your , case tto amount was to tho extent of 20 guineas, lie is interested. The whole question is~tho payment, and members of the board aro debarred by Statute from receiving payments in sums of over live pounds. This is the very practice that tho amendments to the Act are expected to prevent.' • • J. N. Nalder,. Registrar of the Supreme Court,- gavo ■ evidence that the Vesting Bill was saat : from tho Supreme Court, Hokitika, 011 to Wellington 011 July 29. 1912. It had been lodged in the Court between, thirty to thirty-two days previously. It had been advertised in one of the local papers on July G, 13, and 20, 1912. In concluding his remarks, the Magistrate said: "If I am right in tho point of view (and I think I am right, but I shall go into• tho .point carefully) that a person unpaid is. an interested person, tho defendant wag ineligible as a member tho moment he became interested in a contract, becauso the statute lays it down clearly that a member of a board must not expect any profit out of tho board. Supposing I had been satisfied on the evidence that defendant bad done tho whole of the work charged for before he became a member of the board, then I should be right in holding him interested until, he bad been paid. On the other hand, if I was satisfied that some of the work had been dono djiring defendant's term as a member - of tho board, then I would inflict a penalty equal to the value of tho work during that time. The very section under discussion is to prevent interested persons getting on local bodies. It very often happens that a man sets •elected'to a local body or society, and he 'charges'; so much for the. work done, and he also does some work for nothinp. The other members of the board might say, 'We will pay him very liberally for what he has charged for, because he has done so much Without charge, and the fflan'a object may bo achieved. Hence the need .of the present Act. If we were all honest there would bo no need for laws. I am, of course, not referring to the present case, but, as a matter of general principle, interested people are debarred by statute from holding-seats oil local bodies, and I am of opinion that an unpaid man is an interested person. The Act clearly sets that forth." , The case was ultimately adjourned until April SO, to enable Mr. Crawford to call -witnesses. '■