Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Wednesday & Saturday WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1881.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 912, 26 January 1881, Page 3

Poverty Bay Standard.

Published Every Wednesday & Saturday WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1881.

“ We 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."

The Borough Councillors of Napier are making themselves very ridiculous in the election of a Borough Engineer. The last phase of the matter, after already having elected a Mr. Mabchant to the post, is stated in the Hawke's Bay Herald. But we must premise by stating that a spirit of regret appeared to have come over the dream of the Councillors, for, immediately after the election, the Mayor was induced to withhold the notification of the appointment from Mr. Mabchant, who, so far as official channels are concerned, knew nothing of it. The act, however was done, and duly reported in the local papers. At the meeting more recently held, the friends of a Mr. Lamb, and Mr. Lessong, two local candidates, attempted to turn the tables by supporting them in a second conflict; and this is the way it was done: —Cr. M‘Kay moved, pursuant to notice, “ That Bobebt Lamb Esq., be appointed Engineer to the Borough of Napier, at a salary of £3OO per annum.”

Cr. Monteith supported the recommendation of the Public Works Committee, and moved as an amendment—- “ That as the Council has affirmed the desirability of confining the appointment of Engineer to local applicants, applications be advertised for in the local papers for ten days from date; salary £3OO per annum.” Cr. Ellis said their song was "a parody on “ Jam, jam, jam.” All they could sing was “ Lamb, Lamb, Lamb ; nothing but Lamb.” Cr. Leonabd said he was convinced there was something beyond the vote in foisting “ this man ” upon the Borough. Cr. Monteith’s amendment was lost on the casting vote of the Mayor ; whereupon Cr. Swan moved, as an amendment to Cr. M‘Kay’s motion, “ That the appointment of an Engineer to the Borough be left with his Worship the Mayor ” ; thus trying to evade the responsibility of the Council. The Council divided on the amendment, which was also negatived by the casting vote of the Mayor. A division was then taken on Cr. M‘Kay’s motion, the number being again equal, the Mayor, put in his lot with the ayes. At this stage Cr. Monteith put another clog on the Council wheels by enquiring whether in the event of a requisition signed by five Councillors being presented to his Worship he would withhold the communication of his appointment being made to Mr. Lamb, so that an opportunity might be afforded of rescinding the appointment. In reply to which absurd question the Mayor curtly said he “ would consider the matter.”

Then another motion by Cr. Ellis who moved: “ That Mr. 8. Lessong he appointed Engineer.” The Mayor could not well see how the motion could be put, seeing that the Council had already decided the question by appointing Mr. Lamb.

Cr. Swan did not know that there was any thing improper in the Council appointing half a dozen Engineers. Cr. Monteith considered that the motion having been placed on the notice paper, it must be disposed of in some way. Cr. Ellis said that he would probably have to give notice of a motion that would not be pleasant to his Worship. Cr. Leonabd still maintained that there was something dark and mysterious about the proceedings, and after Ellis motion was negatived took up new ground by moving: “ That as Mr. Mabchant is now a local Engineer, he be appointed Engineer to the Borough of Napier.” This was negatived, and the matter ended by Mr. Lamb being elected.

Cr. Ellis, the irrepressible, had a last fling by expressing his perfect indifference whether “ Mr. Lamb turned out to be a chimney sweep or not.” To add to the dignity of the foregoing proceedings, practical jokes were resorted to ; in one instance an attempt was made to get Dr. De Lisle —a hostile Councillor—out of the way at the time the voting was coming on. Just before the hour of meeting a messenger arrived in hot haste at Dr. De Lisle’s residence, and informed him that a case of accidental poisoning at the Spit required his immediate attention. The doctor, however, “ smelled a rat,” and told the messenger to go to Dr. Spencer. We are not surprised to learn from the Hawke's Hay Herald that Mr. Marchant has entered an action for damages against the Napier Borough Council.

Not long since we called attention to a case which appeared to be one of hardship, where a man named Houlden, residing in Gisborne, was summoned to Auckland to shew cause why he failed to support his mother. As we pointed out at the time, from the facts brought before us, Houlden was in such a state of helpless impecuniosity, that he could not redeem even filial obligations, however necessary and incumbent it was on him to do so. A similar case has arisen in Auckland, the facts of which we glean from the AT. Z. Herald. It appears that a man named Duff was brought up on a charge of having failed to comply with an order of the Bench to contribute 5s a-week toward the support of his mother. The order, on first sight, seems a reasonable and fair one, but the defendant urged what should have been a good plea. He had a wife and family to support, and could not afford to keep two houses, but if his mother came to live with him he would give her a home and support her. The mother, a well-to-do looking woman, who did not appear to be the victim of starvation, declined this kind offer. The Magistrate pointed out to defendant that the sum, 5s a week, was small, but the latter, in a natural and unaffected manner, said that 5s a-week made a material difference in the support of a family. He is a hardworking, sober man, who has worked honestly for the support of his family, but was able to make no offer to reduce the amount due on the order of the Court. In default, he was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. As our contemporary remarks, now that Duff is sent to gaol, instead of there being but one pauper there will be a number. The wife and children of this poor fellow must be kept alive during his incarceration. He had no other means than his weekly earnings. It must be admitted that his offer to support his mother at his home was a thoroughly good one, and yet, because he was unable to comply with an arbitrary order,pf the Court, to make a separate money contribution, he is now incarcerated, has lost his employment, and his wife and children are left without means of support. The sentence was reluctantly passed by Mr. Baestow, who endeavored to persuade the mother to accept the son’s offer, but it was passed, and the law which enforces such decisions is to blame. Duff is a deserving, hardworking man, and it is a pity that he and his family of helpless children should be made to suffer in consequence of his poverty and the other conditions of the case.