R. M. COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1446, 4 September 1885, Page 3

R. M. COURT.

YESTERDAY,

(Before R. Ward, Esq., R. M.)

(Continuation of Report.)

Graff v. Park. Claim £100 for two alleged breaches of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1876, Section- 01 and 03. Mr Staite for plaintiff, Mr J. H. Hankins for defendant. Mr Staite opened the case for the plaintiff by addressing the Bench. He said that the subject of the action would not be altogether new to the Court as an almost similar case had been dealt with a short time back m Wanganui and several Dther cases of the same kind were now pending m the same town. A considerable deal of feeling had been shown' in 'this place m connectio:i with the present case, and editorial comments adverse to the plaintiff had been made. The plaintiff's action had' been very unjustly commented on by the Press for bringing the suit. The Act specially defines on what ground a borough Cr may incapacitate himself, and that having done so every time, he subsequently sits m the Council he shall be liable to a penalty that any person may recover. It was clearly m the' scope of a magistrate and a statutory duty on his part to enforce the clause. Surely it was not intended that the Act should romain on the Statute Book a dead letter. The law was made for the public- good, and.it surely will be admit led th.it it would be a most improper thing to allow Crs to. sit and sell goods to the' Council on their own behalf . It was m ist unfair on the part of the Press to cast any reflection on •the. plaintiff before the ca*ie had been heard. He did not allege that Mr Park had taken advantage of his position as a Cr, or that he wilfully did so. -Why hal such an act boon framed"? Did the Legislature contemplate such -actions.-a s , the present .being taken ? ..Was. the Jaw made to be defied, or because men were careless how they acted .when holding' public positions," were they trierefore ; to escape the penalties, inciirrpd by breach* ". of such law — ho ! tli'ongli t ; not;" '.'_' W.tfat-; ever course. of : aqtion- w.qnld ( b.e,jtaken he,, migli t'state .that a f iur 4 r joff-eV j; hjad}:. heea ; ihndp to the; ':defejj<jjvn : t,- Ijiitiilie i>ad;!f ; roj.» fused to accept it, and decided to fight it out. , - •-- - - Mr Jlankins .:;We>are. prepared-, to : .,ad - -, mit that, we would make no ternas with a connnon. informer. ., ■> ;• „' ;• /;: •<<■ •■■; ;; ■'.• . The Benxslv.r'j ihaye. decided, (^.theai?;,' this case without any feeling. I will hear counsel on both sides, but ..-unless., requested to. question wilnc&igs J>yill<Mok>' do so. If the defendant is liable he will' have to pay V'il'it i« jirrtvod "' thaf'tfeHs'' not, the plaintiff will lose his case, that is an, r:...i.:L.J, n.c Mr Staite : The defendant, I find, supplied stationery to the BonyißltecCounc!! to the extent^of ,£7 on |h,e 2n|" of| June ; he sat m the Fin^ufce! C^mitfttlb, ar.ak voted, the payirent of *his ©wWaccouni£7 0s 7d. by each action he had made" himself iiable. The . .whole. . result >vill rest on the interpretation .jnf -ihe- -word ' contract, mentioned m clause ' : CA. -The '•* Bench would decide, : >vs4,th9^jnis>,; chief tho Legi.-l iture intended to" put" down, winch he took, it tva£ that iio per-, son should be allow.ed..tasit and xo'ce ; monies to himrelf. He would. prove that Palmerston was ; a borough and that the defendant had .sat. and .voted as. a member on (lie dates iuentioued. lie would first call E. N. Keeling as a wit ness, and he would produce the Borough' Council minute book, which would prove, the necessary facts of the case, . B. N. Keeling sworn,^ deposed.!— .A.hj.. clerk to the Borough Council of Pulm«rs'.on North ; the defendant, Purl^-. is a •Cr, and took his seat as a Cr on the 15tli Oct., 1884, on which day lie niado , : the necessary declaration. It would riot be my duty ,to see whether a Cr was pro : parly elected or not, he sat afterwards, and at the present time is a member of the Council. On- June 3rd, I attended a meeting of the Finance Committee at which defendant was also present and sat as a councillor. At that meeting an account was passed for payment! to the book depot for £7 0s 7d, the bill has since been burnt m the Town Hall fire, was an ordinary invoice from Mi 1 Park! do not remember Mr Park's name appearing on it. Took a receipt for the money. Don't remember who gave it. Receipt .is burnt. Believe Mr Park carries on the business of the Book Depot. The money was paid on behalf of the proprietor of the Book Depot. I purchased the stationer}' on behalf of the Council at the Book Depot*. Mr Park sometimes supplied the goods himself. Had no definite authority from Council as to buying stationery from any one person. An account was passed m favor of defendant, on the' 3rd June, the bill was made up of small items. Never purchased anywhere elso than the Book Depot. On 19th June was present at a meeting of the Council, and Mr Park sat as Cr. There is now another large stationery fnm m Palmerston, has been here some three months. There was ,no absolute written contract between the Borough Council and Mr Park. Don't know who signed the cheque. Any two Crs can sign cheques. Mr Hankins : We will admit that the defendant sold stationery to the Council between ' February 3rd and May 21st, and that the account m the ledger is to Borough Council, but we admit no contract. R. N. Keeling cross-examined by Mr Hankins : I simply purchased stationery from defendant as any private individual might do. There was no arrangement as to price. Told Mr Park to charge to the Council. This concluded the case for the prosecution, arid no evidence being called for the defence, counsel, for plaintiff addressed the Bench, concluding by stating that His Worship would be aware of the old maxim, that a subsequent ratification is equal to a prior command. He would submit that the breach of the law had been made m receiving the money, that whether the contract wa for a package . of envelopes or for £40 worth of goods, the defendant- would be rendered eqally liable. If the. Bench considered there had been a contract made m this case he would give judgment for jjlaintiff. He would also point out tliat Section 75 reads that no Cr shall vote on any matter m which h.e is directly interested, Mr Hankins then, addressed the court oni belialf of the defendant. He said the Bench would look upon the plaintiff as a common informer. If he (plaintiff) gained his case he only would be the gainer. In this case the clerk had sworn that he had no authority from the Council to purchase from any particular shop, and he had bought the goods as any other private person might do, and without any direction or sanction of the Council. He would contend that such purchase was not a contract within the meaning of the Municipal Corporation Act. If the Legislature intended the Act tobe interpreted as meaning ordinary purchasers, the word dealing or supplying would have been used. Counsel here quoted a case heard b'ef pre Justice Richmond, applicable to the present suit and stated that the judge had remarked that such litigation was not to bo encouraged, and although an infringement hud been made, no intention to evade the Act had been proved and dismiss-ed the case. He (Mr Hankins) contended that the m former Graff, had not proved his case, strictly as it was required all common informers should dp. He would ask tho Bench to give iudgmeut for defendant. The Magistrate, having considered for. some time, gave judgment for Jt'sO, at:4 <}QBtB £2 3s,