The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning. Saturday, September 17, 1887. SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 42, 17 September 1887, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE. Published every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday Morning.

S aturday, September 17, 1887. SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country’s. Thy God’s, and truth’s.

The question opened up at the last Harbour Board meeting, on the presenting of the account from the Sinking Fund Commissioners, for law costs incurred in the action brought against the Board by Baldwin, is one of more than ordinary importance, as affecting the position held by the Commissioners in relation to the the Board. It will be remembered that the members were individually served with writs, as were the Sinking Fund Commissioners, Messrs Butt and Bennett. The Board was ultimately joined in the action; and although some of the members employed their own solicitors to appear on their behalf, bearing the expense themselves, Mr DeLautour practically acted for the whole. The case resulted in the Board's favor, but though successful a great loss fell upon the ratepayers, the Board having to pay their solicitor £lls for his professional services. This sum, indeed, was considered Very moderate, and there was gratification that such a heavy lawsuit had not entailed greater expense. But now, as an addition to this, comes the further claim for £36 costs from the Sinking Fund Commissioners, The discuision which took place on the matter did not make it clear as to what powers the Commissioners held in a matter like this—whether they could involve the Board in all sorts of expense, putting aside the question of justification or otherwise, without the Board having the option of a demur. On looking at the case in its simple light one would naturally conclude that the Commissioners, finding themselves joined with the Board in an important lawsuit, would have consulted with the former, and have taken that course regarding their defence which seemed the most satisfactory in the interests of those who had to stand the expense. But instead of doing this they appointed their own solicitors. Had the Commissioners left their defence with; the Board's solicitor there can be hardly any doubt but that the expense of further legal advice need not have been occasioned. There was no separate defence necessary, for a verdict in favour of the Board would also, in the natural course of events, have been in favour of the Commissioners. Apart from this is the important point to consider of how far can Sinking Fund Commissioners go in the way of incurring legal expenses. At the meeting opinion seemed to be divided on the question. Major Porter was decided in his opinion that the Board had no power whatever to interfere with the Commissioners, and on the other hand Mr Chambers was equally confident that the Commissioners had no right to incur such an expenditure. As well might they spend /.iooo in obtaining legal advice from Home, he said. From what we can learn there appears to be no doubt that the Sinking Fund Commissioners are a separate and distinct body from the Harbour Board, and have power to retain counsel at their own discretion without going to the Board for direction. An opinion from the Attorney General, obtained by the Board on the question of securities, has confirmed this. The Board, it is stated, have no power in either one way or another over the Commissioners. Such is the law, be it for good or bad. If it were not so the incurring of the bill of costs now under discussion would not have been allowed.

It was the undoubted duty of Messrs Butt and Bennett to have placed their defence in the hands of the Board’s solicitor, thus using a due care in the expenditure of the ratepayers’ money, It does seem monstrous that Sinking Fund Commissioners should have absolute power in such matters, but from what we can see the power does lie in them, and the Board simply has to rely on their discretion to incur no unnecessary outlay. Was there any need for the expenditure ? The answer must be in the negative.