CITY COUNCIL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5345, 15 May 1878, Page 2

CITY COUNCIL.

A special meeting of the City Council was held yesterday afternoon in the Council Chambers Present His Worship the Mayor, and Councillors Greenfield, Hunter, J. Allan, George Allen, Dixon, Logan, George, and Macdonald. The Mayor informed the Councillors that the present meeting was called, under the Municipal Act, 1876, to consider the balancesheet and auditors’ report. The Clerk then read the following report:— “We have the honor to inform'yon that we have examined the various statements put before us by the City Treasurer, and we beg to report as follows, viz. : —l. Abstracts of the receipts and expenditure for the half-year ending March 31st; and 2. Abstracts of the receipts and expenditure for the year ending at the same date. These accounts are correct with the exception of a discrepancy,of three shillings. The account for water supplied at the wharf has been credited with three shillings more than actually received, and consequently the receipts for wool-pressing, &c, are stated at three shillings less than they should be.' There is also a small discrepancy of 2d. in the books kept at the wharf, one lodgment at the bank being called £94 19s. 4d., whereas the correct amount as shown in the Corporation and bank books is £94 19s. 6d, Wharf tolls account.—This we are glad to find is now introduced into the books of the Corporation, and we have audited same from the commencement, a period of seventeen months. In examining the vouchers we notice a considerable sum is charged to this account which, in our opinion, should belong to wharf general account; the item of wages and salaries being nearly 50 per cent, of the total amount received for tolls. Included in these items we find honorariums paid to Councillors as members of Wharf Committee, but we know of no clause in the Act authorising payment to Councillors, but only to the Mayor. A sum of at least £ISOO debited to general account, and credited to tolls account would, we think, place the two accounts on a more equal footing.” .... The following correspondence on the subject was next read “ Memorandum for the City Solicitor—May 11, 1878.—1 n the auditors’ report on the Corporation's accounts to the 31st March, 1878, there is a clause headed Wharf Tolls Account; in that, and in the last clause of all, exception is taken to the mode in which ihe various items of account are classified. Will you have the goodness to inform me if that is a matter which comes within the functions of the auditors, or should their duties be restricted to the correctness of the receipts and expenditure, as verified by vouchers, and paid under proper authority of the Council. An early reply will oblige. CHARLES O. ,Graham, Town Clerk." “I am opinion that the last three paragraphs of the auditors' report relate to matters beyond their function, and ought not to have formed part of their report. The matters upon which they are to report are clearly defined by sections 129 and 132 of the Act, and are confined to ascertaining the correctness of the accounts, as regards receipts and payments, as verified by vouchers, and received and paid under proper authority of the Council.— William Thomas Locke Travers, City Solicitor. May 11, 1878.” “ Memorandum for the City Solicitor. —May 9, 1878. — Be auditors’ report.— In the auditors' report herewith you will find in the clause marked* that the auditors question the legality of the honorarium paid to Councillors as members of the Wharf Committee. Will you be so good as furnish me with a written opinion on this question in the course of the day, if possible. Charles C. Graham, Town Clerk.” “There is nothing in the Act to prohibit such a payment, and I do not think that a member of the Wharf Committee, even though paid for acting as such member, is a person bolding ‘an office or place of profit under or in the gift of the Council,’ so as to disqualify him from being a Councillor.— William Thomas Locke Travers, City Solicitor. 9th May, 1878.” Councillor Hunter remarked that under the beading of assets in the statement of accounts he found that the Town Belt was only valued at £36,560 and the Te Areforeshore at £20,000. These figures ha thought were greatly below the value of the properties. The Matou stated that they were calculated at 20 years’purchase. He was fully aware that the, properties were worth considerably more than the sums mentioned in the statement of accounts. The accounts were then passed unanimously, sad the meeting adjourned.