The Wanganui Borough Council Cases.

Manawatu Standard, Volume X, Issue 1453, 12 September 1885, Page 4

The Wanganui Borough Council Cases.

(Friday's Chronicle.) Messrs Carson and Laird confessed judgment yesterday m the cases brought against them to recover penalties , for breaches of the Municipal-Corporations Act, m acting as councillors while concerned m a " contract or work to- be done" for the local borough council— in other words for, m the c:ise of the fiivstnamed gentleman, inserting certain counciladvertisement m this paper, and: m the other for supplying some trees and shrubs for the public reserves. Mr David- Murray, who has been* absent from town for two or three days, will, we understand, confess judgment before his case is called on for -hearing this morning. The court fees alone, m the case of: Mr Oar son, amounted to the tidy little sum of £17 odd. For the information of any of our readers who, by reason of their connection with local bodies, may- be liable to similar actions as those under notice, we may mention i that the defendants m Ihe Wansanui cases took the best advice obtainable here, ■"'ith the view of nppealm? against the decision of the Eesidont, Magistrate, before they very relrotantlv chcirW to confess judgment. It is only fair that we should say that, after -cr refill inquiry and research, they have come to tho conclusion that it is more the Act that is at fault, than Mr Ward's ; nter.pretafon of it. If we are rightly informed,, the Attorney-General has given it as his opinion that the term "contract" em ployed m the Act covers any bus' ness transaction, however small, bv;a councillor with the council of which he is a member, and the fact that the Hon. MiStout has just introduced a B'll -into Parliament to relax somewhat the provisions of the statute, show* that he considers it is the law and not ite interpretation that is at fault Mr W. T. L. Travers, of Wellington, whose onin ; on oft law points is generally h^ r l to he. sound, has been consulted by the Yielding people, and has emphitJcillv kx pressed the opinion that <spllincr g-od* over the counter to a Por-ng'-> CNinnil constitutes a contract linger the Act. In the English Municipal Corporation- Act there is, we believe, no special internre tion of the term contract, but it is construed to mean nothing nwe nor less than what would V>e o'lriside'-e-l to be a contract if engaged m between private persons ; and m two or three cases which have been defprnvned, it has been decided by the highest courts that for a councillor to sunyilvanv arf'c.ifi to a Council of which he .is at the time a member, i* to bp roioernorl m a contract with Such council. In one of the English cases to wh'oh xvn have referred Baron Bramwell sn:id " Whether the Legislature inremlorl that, wli oortracts should or should not bp w'thin t\\ a . Act is another matter, but I think iP a shilling's worth of stationery was bougl-t by an alderman, there would b« n. contract between the cwnomtjon" aid the •aVloiman. Wh^her the I egis^^irp intends such a thing or not is another matter. Probably if they had intended it they would have used the word ' dealing' or some such wn 1 . However, it 's a contract, nrrl ''pdependonHv of any reasoning 1 nroi the mntter. T think it is conclude 1 ! by the ore of Nicholson v. Feild c , where a somewhat s'mihr cm tract was invr-1 >ri. T'^e-e it wis a lvll for lime supplied to crrhain commissioners. In this case it is a casual sunnlv of candles, or some such thin?." Another of the ju^g^s sn'd : "T rb not fee l , myself. much doubt that th : s contract is nvt only within the mischief contemnlatpd by the Act, but thatlit comes within -the terms of it. The only assistance wVnh I can obtain towards constructing the Ant is from the terms of the subs a nnr > n l- statup, 15 Viet., C. 5, which explains this Act and amends it. That ko.t has this clause m it, ' That from and after the piss : n«r ot this Act no person shall be deemed to have had er to have an interest m a contract or emn'ovment with -or on behalf of such council, commissioners or trustees, by reason only of bis hav'ng had a share or interest m any newspaper m which any advertisement relating to the affairs of any such borough, council, commissioners or trustees, may have been or may hereafter bo inserted,' wh'ch ! shows that the previous statue applies to simple acts of that fpvt, and not merely to permanent cont.rncts." The provision hero ment'oned with regard to advertising is confined m the colonial a^t, and if. is consequently held that New Zealand newspaper proprietors who are councillors are liable to penalties for the insprt?on of advertisements m theit journals. Under all the circumstances, m the. face of the English decisions and the opinions of colonial barristers as to the effect of the New Zealand statue, there was not much ground left for the Wanganui defendants on, which to anpeal( and they have adopted the only course left to them, by confessing judgment and not inenrrinor any further expenditure m the way of defence.