The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1881.

Kumara Times, Issue 1476, 21 June 1881, Page 2

The Kumara Times. Published Every Evening. TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1881.

Tub position of the Borough Council with regard to one of its members is, to say the least of it, most peculiar. A motion has been introduced by a member to the following effect:—"That the Town Clerk be appointed to proceed under the Municipal Corporations Act, part 7, clause 97, and summons before the Resident Magistrate's Court, in Knmara, George Simmons, sen., holding the office of Borough Councillor in the Borough of Kumara, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be adjudged to be ousted of the same, he having ceased to be a burgess, his name not being on the Burgess Roll." The real facts of the case appear to be as follows. When Mr Simmons was elected, he was duly qualified, his name being on the Burgess Roll, the pi-operty rated being a shop in Seddon street.

He then ceased to occupy, and his name was removed from the roll. When he discovered that his name was not on the valuation list, he appealed to the Assessment Court, and it was then shown that the house was held in his wife's name. The Court ruled against the application, and not being on the valuation list his name was, as a matter of course, omitted from the Burgess Roll. This roll was certified to as correct by Mr Simmons. We now come to the legal aspect of the case. Clause 60 of the " Municipal Corporations Act, 1876," states that "Every burgess enrolled in respect of rateable property, the value of which, whether in one or more tenements, or in one or more wards, amounts in the whole to not less than twenty-five pounds a year, shall be qualified to be a Councillor of the Borough, or of any ward thereof." The amending Act of last year, however, repealed this clause, and substituted in its place a provision that " every burgess enrolled in respect of rateable property shall be qualified to be a councillor of the borough." Next we come to an unrepealed clause (61) in the Act of 1876, which shows that any person not enrolled in respect of rateable property, is incapable of being a councillor. Clause 97 of the Act of 1876, and this may be said to be more to the matter in question than those we have already quoted, provides that—- '' Upon prima facie proof by affidavit or otherwise that the Mayor or any councillor or auditor is, or has become incapable under the provisions of this Act of holding his office, the Resident xVTagistrate's Com t in or nearest to the borough may grant a summons calling upon the person holding such office to show cause why he should not be adjudged to be ousted of the same." We further find that a very heavy penalty attaches to any person who is disqualified under the Act, and who takes part in the proceedings of the Council. There is a saving clause which allows the Governor, under certain conditions, to deelare that the proceedings of the Council shall not be vitiated by reason of any informal act of any member thereof, so that if the proper steps be at once taken, no great damage will be done to the borough in the present instance, but we ask, is it wise, to carry on the business of the Council in the face of such hard and stubborn facts as we have brought forward? The Borough Solicitor has been appealed to for an opinion, and pending his reply it may be unnecessary to say more than we have done ; but we still, in anticipation of that reply, venture to express an opinion that Mr Simmons does not hold his seat in the Borough Council with the authority of law.