RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GOLDSBOROUGH.

Kumara Times, Issue 1107, 17 April 1880, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, GOLDSBOROUGH.

• ■ “•> Thursday, April 15. {Before J. Giles, Esq., R.M.] ALLEGED ILLEGAL MEMBERSHIP OP THE AKAHURA ROAD BOARD. John Rodgers pleaded nut guilty to an information laid by Thomas Tennant, butcher, of Dillman’s Towu. The information was as follows: That John Rodgers did act as a member of the Arahura Road Board, by taking part in the proceedings of the said Board, whilst incapacitated so to do by reason of his having gone out of office as a member ov the Board on the second Thursday in December last, and not having been re-elected since.

Mr Purkiss appeared for the informant; Mr Button tor the defendant.

The informant was called, but did nfiT appear.

Mr Stanhope took his seat beside" Mr Purkiss, but was, at the request of Mr Button, ordered out of Court. Mr Purkiss, in opening the case, argued that the defendant, having been one of .the three members who alone acted in the year 1879, and, being

longest in office, under clause 19 of the “ County of - Westland Act, his : seat had become vacant, and that he was thereby incapacitated from sitting. That, under clause 18, he had brought himself subject to the penalty there enacted. That, being a penalty, it was only recoverable in the manner sought by the information, which in legal phraseology would be termed a quasi criminal action. As regards the facts of the, case, the Board had at : some period,* through neglect, allowed the nmu her of members attending the Board to be reduced to three members, and then found that one of these members refused to act; therefore the business of the Board con’d not be proceeded with it Rodgers could be, forced not to act. He called

Mr Byrne, late Secretary of the Board, who produced the books and records of the Board, according to the writs of return of members. The prei sent members were Seddon, Lock, and Rodgers. Stanhope and Lawless bad forfeited their seats through non-attend-ance. These vacancies had nob been officially notified to the Returning Officer; neither had the Board dealt with the question. The sixth seat was not filled through the inadvertence of Mr Seddon being nqminated and elected to fill two seats. Being in Wellington, Mr Seddon was unaware of the occurrence, but on return maintained that he held his seat on the 1878 election. Murphy, Griffiths, and Hannan were the retiring members in 1879. There was a doubt about Hannan’s qualification to Sic owing to his having tiled his schedule; but the Board not having taken any action, his seat had not been declared vacant. Rodgers had always been looked upon as having a seat, and as secretary he had always forwarded circulars notifying meetings. On February sth he had sent a notice to Rodgers ; he also asked Rodgers to attend. Rodgers at first declined, stating he did nob wish to be mixed up in the squabble ; but he afterwards consented, seeing that unless he did so the deed deciding the merging 0 f the Board could nob be signed. He would sweat* positively that the defendant was John Rodgers and the person elected in 1878; that at that time he was duly qualified, and on the Roll as a householder at Shamrock Lead ; and that the defendant was still on the certified roll as being qualified. This closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr Button, for the defence, argued that the information was bad, and that the Court had no jurisdiction ; that by a side wind tjje informant wished to give all . the trouble and annoyance he could to defendant and the Road Board ; that the penal clauses did not apply, even if, the case had Been brought.under sections 15, 16, 17, a'niT lS of the “ Counties Act, which defined what was meant by incapacity or nonqualification. He also quoted other authorities to prove this. Ouster of office was the only, way to decide the point, and that could only he tried in the Supreme Court under a writ of quo warranto ; in fact his learned friend had so advised the County Council, and had entered suit by asking for a rule nisi. Had not the parties backed out when they found the County funds could not be applied for that purpose, the whole question would have been settled at the last Supreme Court meeting. The points he had raised were sufficient to quash the information. He had allowed the merits of the case to be gone into at the request of the Chairman of the Board, seeing there was nothing to hide, otherwise he would have asked a decision on the law points alone.

His Worship said it was a very important case, and, seeing there was so many other things hinged on it, he would reserve judgment tmtil next Thursday, at Stafford.