The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1392, 1 August 1878, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 1878.

The question of the legality or otherwise of the deductions sought to ho made by the Government from the amount duo to the Canterbury Road Boards from the land fund as at 31st December last is about to he decided by the Supreme Court. The first step in this direction lias been taken by the solicitor for the Avon Road Board, tho claim of which body has been made a test case. We do not propose in this article to discuss the abstract question whether or not the Government is entitled to make the deductions. The matter being sub judice prevents this being done. All that wo propose doing is to bring before our readers tho arguments adduced by counsel in support of tho case in such a way as to enable thorn to form their owu opinions more readily than by a cursory glance at the somewhat lengthly report of the case which has appeared in the local papers. The main point, as we take it, of the argument of tho counsel for tho Avon Road Board, was, that tho Treasuer, in the Gazette issued on tho _ 24th January, askuowlodgod to a certain ascertained balance due and payable to tho various Road Boards, tho deductions authorised uudor statute having boon made to that date, By this official admission it was argued tho Treasurer acknowledged to having in his hands a certain sum which, under the Financial Arrangements Act and the Public Revenues Act, was to be dealt with in a specified manner. The only deductions which could bo made thereupon wore clearly defined by statute, and those appeared on the debit side of the account published under the authority of tho Treasury. These deductions having been made, and a balance arrived at, under tho 16th section of tho Public Revenues Act, all tho moneys accruing from land fund after such deductions wore made, became payable after the lapse of ninety days to tho Road Boards. It was therefore contended that tho statute made it compulsory on the Treasurer to make such payment, no other deductions being contemplated by law. Tho learned Judge raised the point as to whether there was sufficient evidence that tho Goveifupent were

cognizant by duo notice that the allocution had boon made by the County Council, of the sums to he paid to each Road Board. This it was argued, in reply, was proved by the fact that the Government had remitted certain payments to such of these bodies, thus showing that some information of an official character as to the allocation must have reached them. Had it boon otherwise they would most certainly have been entirely without a basis upon which to make such payments. As regards the deductions to bo made, the counsel for the Board drew attention to the fact that those were all defined by statute. By the 4th aud 9th sections of the Financial Arrangements Act, certain deductions were to bo made from the accrued land fund of the various districts. These it was shown by the statement of accounts published by the Treasury, had boon made. Hence, so far as the law went, it was contended that the Treasurer had no authority to deduct anything further from the amount due to the Road Board. This having been done, as shown and admitted by the Government in publishing the accounts as ascertained on the 31st of December, the balance remaining came tinder the provisions of the 16th section of the Public Revenues Act providing that it should bo paid over within ninety days after December 31st. Thus, the Road Boards argue, a duty was imposed by law on the Colonial Treasurer to comply with this provision. There was not, it was put by counsel,in any legislation existing a provision giving power to the Government to make any deductions from the laud revenue beyond those authorised by the sections already quoted, of tho Financial Arrangements Act. Tho balance remaining by the Act of the Legislature, was applicable within a certain time to a specific purpose, aud to that purpose only. It did not appear, it was held, to have been contemplated by tho Legislature, that auy deductions beyond those specified should be made, Hence it was argued that the Government having stated an ascertained balance duo to the Road Boards after all deductions provided for by law had been made, was in this position that they had no alternative but to pay over tho amount in their hands to the Road Boards. In fact, tho argument of counsel amounts to this, that tho Government were tnistees of this money, and wore bound to apply it to the purposes contemplated by tho Legislature. Had any disbursements occurred under the heads mentioned in the 4th and 9th sections of the Act, it was forcibly put by counsel that they should, and undoubtedly would, appear iu the accounts as issued by the Government. Tho disbursements aud charge there stated must, he argued, bo taken to be all that were legally chargeable up to the close of the quarter ending December 31st. This is the argument on tho Road Board side of the case, and indeed the strong point. Their contention is that had no accounts been published; had tho Government not issued a statement showing tho balance in the Treasury to tho credit of the accrued land fund as at 31st December shown, tho complainants iu the present case could hardly have alleged that they wore wrongfully deprived of what was their due, because no basis would have been arrived at upon which to- fix the proportionate share of each individual Board under the allocation of the County Council. But they say “ there is a cortain balance struck of which our share is so and so. We, however, have only received so much, which is considerably less than wo consider we are entitled to.” It was also argued by counsel that the proportion due to the respective counties being fixed by statute, there was no necessity for evidence being adduced that so much was due to the County of Selwyn. Section 9 of the Financial Arrangements Act was quoted in support, showing that by law three-fifths of the balance of accrued land revenue was to bo paid to counties in proportion to area, and two-fifths in proportion to the subsidies paid to them. Therefore it was submitted there was no ambiguity about the amount duo to the County of Selwyn, and that tho Statute made it perfectly clear and easily ascertainable. This being so, coupled with the foregoing arguments, it was submitted that the Government could not retain in their hands any part of this money, or apply it to any purpose other than that provided for by the two acts spokeu of. Such in brief is the case presented by the counsel foi tho Road Board. Of course until the argument has been heard, and Judgment delivered, any comment would be out of place. Only one side has yet been hoard, aud until the question has been fully argued and decided, opinion must be suspended. In the meanwhile wo have thought it right to give our readers a brief tbsudic of tho arguments used, so that when tho case comes to be fully discussed —as it doubtless will be—upon the merits, they will be enabled clearly to comprehend the position of affairs, as between the parties.