SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2214, 29 July 1914, Page 11

SUPREME COURT

PROCLAMATION. OF ROADS BOROUGH, COUNCILS' POWERS j To determine the question as to whether/Section 11 of the Land Act (referring to roads) applies to boroughs, an originating summons was brought in the Supreme Court, and was heard yesterday morning before a full bench comprising the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Cooper. ' The plaintiff in the action was the Wellington City Council and the defendant was the AttoracyGeneral. The City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea), with Mr. D. S. Smith, appeared for the City Council, while the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.) appeared iw the i Attorney-General: Under Section 181 of the Municipal Corporations Act, the City Council has power to make, any new street, divert, widen, diminish the width of,- or stop any existing stseet "by special order, but the procedure (it is alleged) is cumbersome. A simple procedure is provided by Section 11 of the Land Act, but Borough Councils' are not specially mentioned.in that Section At an early stage of : the legal argument, the Chief Jiistico asked -Sir. O'Shea. if the Court was asked to read the word "road" as meaning "street." : Mr. O'Shea replied that his contention was that Section' 11 of. the .Land Act was just as applicable to boroughs as to comities.. .'.''.■ 'Mr. Justice Cooper said it was clear that the City' Council could proceed under the Municipal Corporations Act, and he asked why they should desire to invoke the power of the Governor. Mr. O'Shea's answer was that.. the procedure under the Municipal Corporations Act, was so cumbersome. Every special order' applied for cost something like £10 for advertising, and- that was nothing liko the total cost. Mr. Justice Cooper: The reason for that is thai all the public, may. know what is heing done, and you want to do it surreptitiousl.v by putting a notice in the Gazette, which no one reads. In the course of further argument) Mr. O'Shea explained that one of the works which the City Council desired to v-arry out w.as the formation' of the road to connect two bridges at the Hult. Mr. Justice Edwards inquired if the City Council had any. power to spend the rates, which were enormous, in a ■work of the kind outside, their boundary. , ■ ' ' Mr. O'Shea. stated that th? work covored an expenditure which would have necessarily been incurred in connection with pipe bridges for the water supply. Counsel later quoted a judgment in ,which,his Honour tho Chief, Justice had said that the golden rule was , to interpret all. deeds and statutes so as to give .effect, to every word , and ovory expression in the deed or statute, The Chief Justice: Yee, and you want us to cive effect to tho words "borough' council" which do not appear in the 'statute.' Mr. Justice Edwards at a later stapK* of the argument remarked, that counsel was not nddrpssiila Parliament, to show what power horoiisslis should liavp. but thnt.it was for him to eho.w, the Court tnnt thenower actually existed. Even had his Hoiimir been a member of Parliament, h? did uoVthink he would'have' ajvrood with counsel's contentions. '.Mr.-Smith, and thf Solicifior-Oeriprnl, Who: followed Mr.: O'.Phpn. were hriof in their "rf'Tflressos to'the Goiirt". and after Mr. O'SIW h'ad'-rrplierK tlipir.Honours iritimnted that thev^ would take time to consider thdr decision. • ' ;'