The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 297, 11 August 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1875.

” W« shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

W k observe that the Road Board at its last sitting decided that a letter should be sent to Mr. W. Walsh asking that gentleman to act as a Fence Viewer in the place of Mr. Meldbum, whose election at the Annual Meeting of Ratepayers has been found to have been illegal. Of course we have not the slightest objection to offer to Mr. Walsh’s election— on the contrary, being a thoroughly practical and honest man, we think he is eminently qualified for the post; but the circumstance of the Board’s proposal presents a difficulty as to filling the vacancy in'the way suggested by that body, and the facts to which we now purpose drawing attention, relative to the election of fence Viewers, are pregnant with

sufficient importance to warrant a more rigid examination of the law before any further steps are taken in the matter.

Clause 11 of the “ Fencing Act, 1855, Amendment Act 1874 ” says “If any person elected as a fence: “ viewer by the ratepayers shall die, “ resign, refuse to act, become dis- “ qualified, or leave the province, the “vacancy shall be filled up in the “ same manner as is provided in the “ case of vacancies in District Boards “ by the “ Highways Act 1874.” From this we conclude that there is no other way of electing another Fence Viewer than by proceeding under the Highways Act, at a meeting of the general body of ratepayers hy nomination and election, the same as at the annual meeting. A writer in the Weekly News has raised a moot point, in reference to the election of Fence Viewers at the Annual Meeting, which our own Board would do well to consider «n calling another meeting. It is urged, and, it would appear with some truth, that the notice convening the meeting ought to state the precise business to be brought before it; that any other business transacted, of which the have received no notice, is, as a consequence, null and void; and, that as the election of Fence Viewers at many of the Annual Meetings did not primarily constitute the business for which such meetings were held, but was introduced subsequently, it is, ipso jure, bad. We quote the 17th clause of the “ Highways Act, 1874’’entire: “On some “day during the month of July in “every year to be notified at least “ two weeks previously in a newspaper “ a meeting of the persons qualified as “ aforesaid shall be held at a time and “ place to be publicly notified by the “ District'Board and the same quorum “ being present thereat as in the case “ of a first meeting shall if they think “ fit fix the nature and amount of the “ rate for the then current year and “ thereafter elect the District Board “ and auditors in like manner as pro- “ vided for the first meeting and trans- “ act any other business with which the “ ratepayers are by law authorised to “deal, provided that intimation of the “intention to transact such business “ shall have been given in the notice “ calling such meeting and the members “ of the Board and auditors so elected “at such first or annual meeting shall “ hold office until the election of their “ successors provided that if the first “or annual meeting shall not have “ fixed the nature and amount of the “ rate the District Board shall as soon “as conveniently may be thereafter “ fix the rate to be levied within the “ district for the current year.” From the foregoing there can hardly be a doubt that the election of the Fence Viewers at the last Annual Meeting was not in strict accordance with the law, inasmuch as that the Ratepayers were not made acquainted with “ the intention to transact such business consequently, any act done by him or them, by virtue of such election would, if contested in a Court of law, be held to be illegal, and much inconvenience would follow. Therefore, on this hypothesis, we suggest that the election of the other Fence Viewer— Mr. McKenzie— should be set aside at once, and that the proceedings connected with the election of two others, in terms of the Act, should be commenced de novo.