FULL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 249, 15 July 1919, Page 6

FULL COURT

* —— TRAVELLING EXPENSES POWERS OF DRAINAGE- BOARDS Yesterday His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir- Robert Stout) read his reserved judgment and that'of: Mr. Justico Cooper, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Jus tice Herdman in the case of the Controller and Auditor-General v. the Eltham Drainage .Board, heard on July 4. The question submitted to the Court tor its judgment was whether tho Eltharn Drainage Board was empowered by section U of the Land Drainage Act, 1008. to act on the authority conferred upon county councils by section 82 of the Counties Act, 1908, as amended by section 15 of the Counties Amendment Act, .1013, and pay the actual travelling expenses,'or pay a lump sum in lieu of travelling expenses to the chairman of the defendant board., Tho facts as set out in the statement showed that on October 21, 1916, the Elthaui Drainage Board passed a resoliition that the chairman 6h'puld be paid a sum of .tft), in lieu of travelling expenses. Such payment was made on the advice of the Drainage Board's solicitors. who considered that by virtue of section 14 of the Land Drainage Act, IDfIS. and by section 82 of the Counties Act, 1908, as amended by section 15 of the Counties Amendment' Act, 1913, the Drainage Board was entitled to vote a lump sum to the chairman in lieu of travelling expenses. Tho question submitted was: "Is the Eltham Drainage Board ■ empowered by section 11 of the Land Drainage Act, I'JOS, to exercise the authority conferred upon county councils by section 82 of the Counties Act, 1908. as amended by the Counties Amendment Act, '1913."

It was contended for the Auditor-Gen-eial thnt the Eltham' Drainage Board was not entitled to pay travelling expenses. Tho- members of local bodies could not help themselves to public funds even on the plea cf indemnity without statutory authority. . It - ivas- contended further that section 14 of the Land Drainage Act did not confer 011 tho Drainage Board the powers' possessed by a county council, and also that it did not incorporate the Counties Act or any part of it.

For the board it was maintained that section 14 laid down the administration work of the board, and read in conjunction with section 37, gave to the Drainage Board the power fo pay the money. Section 14 was intended and did give to the Drainage Board'every power possessed by a county council with respect' to the administration provisions of the Act.

The Court held that the Drainage Board had the power to make-the payment, and gave judgment accordingly, with oSIS 15s. costs. At the hearing Sir John Salmond, K.C., npeared for the A ; uditor-Genernl, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, IC.C., with him Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie, for the, Eltham Drainage 1 Board.