REGINA (IN’ THE RELATION OF JOHN M'KERZIE) V. MAO GINNIS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1072, 10 November 1882, Page 3

REGINA (IN’ THE RELATION OF JOHN M'KERZIE) V. MAO GINNIS.

Aroumknt of rule nisi for quo'warrant \ Mr. Denniston moved the rule absolute, and Mr. Smith appeared to show cause. In this case the right of Councillor Maeginris to the chairmanship of the Vincent County was disputed on the ground that his election was invalid. The argument mainly rested upon the point whether at the time of the last election of a chairman of the county Councillor Macginms assumed the position of acting chairman legally or otherwise. After argument, His Honor said : I think that the clerk of the Council should have presided and put the motion. In that case if there is uo permanent chairman of the Council, the clerk (throughout the Act) is recognised as the representative of the Council. The first thing, when a motion is made that some person should he chaimian of the meeting, it stands to reason that there can be no chairman, and the clerk being the represea tat.ive of the Council the motion must be put by the clerk, who must have thi conduct of the proceedings. If the clerk had presided hero, he would have been able to exercise the functions of chair man, he being an impartial person who would have keen able to decide wha‘ latitude of discussion should be allowed. It would he also his duty to decide when the motion was carried. I think that Coun" cillor MaeOinnis acted entirely wrong in assuming to put the motion proposing that he ; hould take the chair and in taking upon himself the conduct of the proceedings. In deciding in the face of opposition that the motion was carried he acted in effect as champion in his own cause. I think it is quite clear that although the councillors may have committed an irregularity in the election of a temporary chairman—in the election of acting chairman for the meeting —it is one which the councillors assembled might waive ; yet when at the time the irregularity takes place some of the councillors object to the proceedings, as they seem to have objected here—whether or no a formal protest was entered—l certainly think it is an irregularity which can properly be taken up by the parties objecting subsequently. And if a person assumes wrongfully and in the face of opposition from some members of the Council a position to which he has no right, the court will on the motion of an opposing member exercise its powers and will grant the quo vjatranlo. It is very unfortunate that these proceedings have arisen in the Vincent County. The rule must be made absolute, with coats.