Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1883.

Let it be distinctly understood that the remarks we are about to make are in no wise intended to cast any reflections whatever on the parties engaged in the late suit of Quinlan v. Cannon. Our only wish is to give an opinion upon a point which vitally affects the public in general. The question we wish to discuss is whether the Borough Council is liable, or holds itself responsible for, not alone its servants, but all those who lease or hold any position or privilege which has been let by contract. Now, we are with Councillor Tucker in this matter, and we must congratulate that gentleman on being able to see beyond and through the case in point, and questioning the policy of creating a precedent, without mature and careful consideration. Though we were glad to see Mr Cannon individually recouped, yet we must candidly say that the Council had no right whatever to pay the public money away in any case of this kind. When the Council lets any

privilege, such as pound, ferry, or anything of the sort, they let it with all profits and losses, and to make itself liable for the actions of the lessees is not alone calculated to encourage negligence and carelessness, but is also calculated to keep them in constant litigation. We certainly believe that Mr. Cannon was right in acting as he did, but we are certain that the Council did wrong in acting as they did. In a case of thia description the parties concerned should be entirely lost sight of, and the principle alone considered. Had this been done, we have little hesitation in saying that the Council would have decided otherwise than it did. We hope to see this matter settled when Cr. Tuuker’s motion cornea on for discussion at the next meeting, and that lessees will be given to understand that the Council has nothing whatever to do with any difficulties which may occur in the working or carrying out of any privilege which has once been sold with all its gains and losses.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18830804.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1338, 4 August 1883, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
362

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1883. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1338, 4 August 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE : SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 1883. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1338, 4 August 1883, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert