POLICE CALLED IN

Hokitika Guardian, 18 February 1927, Page 4

POLICE CALLED IN

LIVELY .MEETING AT EDEN

AUCKLAND, Feb. 15. Healed arguments at a. meeting of the Glen Eden Town Board last evening culminated in an uproar, the chairman, Mr AV. 11. Shepherd, calling in Constable Smith to eject Air J. H. Haves, a member. There was a fair

attendance of ratepayers The trouble com mo need when Mr Haves and Air J. At. AVest made formal objections to the minutes of a previous meeting, when they walked out owing to an argument as fo whether the meeting had lapsed fur want of a quorum or not. They maintained there was not. a quorum present at eight o’clock, the time limit, and the chairman held that there was a quorum present before 8 o’clock, and everything was in order in continuing the meet-

ing. The main objection of the two members was that the episode when they left, the mooting was not correctly reported. Several members joined in the argument. The chairman finally stood up, and, thumping heavily outlie table, demanded a hearing. Air Hayes: AYe all know you aro chairman of the meeting, but you aro not Tsar of it. The Chairman : I demand an apology from the man who put that report in the papers. I say the report was not true. Air Ha.ves (shouting): It was true. The Chairman : I move that Air Hayes ho suspended.

Air AA’est: Such a motion is ridiculous. Mr Hayes: 1 wrote the report, and say it is true. AA’hat more do you want ? Air Shepherd: To put an unsigned article of that description in the paper is a serious matter. 1 will stand insults from no one. I order you out of the room. Air Hayes: You cannot. Mr West: You cannot make him go. ’ CONSTABLE CALLED IN. Air Shepherd, to Air H. Cloudier, ihe clerk: “Ring up Constable Smith to come along. In the meantime business will cease. The meeting waited for half an hour

before the constable arrived. Air West in the meantime quoting the law ou the subject to show the chairman could not take such a step. When the constable arrived, the* chairman said lie had suspended Mr Hayes, hut he had refused to go. Air Hayes: He did not suspend ino. He ordered me out. lie lias been suspending people all iiigut. Air West: The law on the subject states that sudli a step is illegal. The chairman : AYe are not arguing the law now. At this stage. Air West retired from the meeting, slating as he went out nf the door (hat lie would not sit under such a chairman. Constable Smith then jierused the Town Board Act, and stated he could not: find provision for the ejectment of a member. The chairman : II does not. say a member cannot lie ejected. I’li'' constable, to Air Hayes: AA’hy ! not use a little sense, .Mr TTayes, and go oin. )mt have the proper course for any redress. You will not lose anv prestige by leaving the meeting. The chairman: If a man obstructs

the business of iho Board, ho can. be ejected. The constable: T am in (bis position, r am not going to leave myself open I for a 'technical assault. I will he ) quite candid about the matter. j Alter further discussion, it was unanimously decided to adjourn the meeting until this evening. During fho evening, Mr Haves banded a notice of motion to the clerk that the Board protests against the action of the chairman in with-holding from ' the knowledge of the Board certain correspondence from the Auditor-Gen-eral. and demands that the corros- ! pondence be produced. -

ALLEGED FRAUD. AUCKLAND, Feb. 17. Further light was thrown on a recent stormy meeting of the Glen Eden Town Board at the Magistrate's Court when one member, John Henry Hayes, claimed £3O 10s ffd from another member, Abraham Joseph Routlev. He alleged that Routlev. who is a storekeeper. supplied to the Board goods for which bo was ]|iid 10s ffd. Hayes also preferred charges that Routlev. knowing this, voted on a matter in which be had an interest, namely, the payment of accounts for goods supplied. Hayes claimed to recover the 10s ffd paid by the Board, land also £lO in respect of each of the,three transactions as provided by the Public Contracts and Local Bodies Contractors Act. In opening the case for plaintiff. Mr Nnrthcroft said that Routlev believed •at the time that be was entitled to supply the goods and receive payment. Routlev learned at n later meeting that if was not open to him to receive payments from the Board. The amounts concerned were trifling, and it might luivo been expected that Routlev would Hive abandoned so triflin" an

’■mount. TTaA fie done so. lie would not have been guiitv of anv intentional offence, and probably no trouble would have arisen, but at this point defendant descended to subterfo< r e. However anxious be was to serve the public, lie

was not prewired to relinquish the small sum concerned", and be proceeded to perpetrate a fraud on the other members, or at least some of them. Ho went to another storekeeper, J. Robertson, and asked him to render an account for goods to the Board in

Robertson's i»ime. The account was rendered, as requested, and came before the Board in the finance report, and the adoption of the report was actually seconded by Roiftley liimself In due course, the account was paid to Robertson, who credited the amount to Routlev. Under ordinary circumstances. defendant would have been entitled to sympathy had be inadvertently infringed the law, but when a member of a Board. for Paltry amount of 10s 3d. descended to fraud, it was. proper for liny person, on becoming aware of the facts, to bring the matter before the Court. In this case, the impropriety was so great that it was plaintiff’s duty to take action. Mr West, for the defence, said there vs is no proof that Routlev had acted with a guilty knowledge. He would admit the utter foolishness of the transaction; but had no guilt in the matter.

The Magistrate. Mr Cutten. reserved his decision.