GATES ON ROADS.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 153, 7 March 1916, Page 4

GATES ON ROADS.

County Council Sued. Technical Objection Raised At the Waiuku Magistrate's Court on Friday last, befuro E. Fage, S.M., the Franklin County Council were the defendant's in an action as a sequel to their (,the Council's) rofusal to comply with a petition lodged with them asking that Mr J. A. Renall, a member of the Council, thonld be called on to remove a gate placed across the Kobe Kohe Beach road, in the Awhitu Riding, it being alloged that Mr Reuall as tin owner of the adjoining "property was responsible for the existence of the gate. The nominal plaintiffs iu the case were Messrs William and John I. Douglas, of Pukekoho, who were represented by Mr LL. 11. Ostler, whilst Mr A. Hauna appeared for the County Council. Prior to the case being called on the Magistrate, in company with both Counsel, motored out and viowed the gate.

Mr Hauna. at tho outset, submitted that tho petition as submitted to the Council did not comply with tho Counties Act, inasmuch as tho signatures were not verified by the statutory declaration of some person or persons residing in tho County. Tho petitioners had also only signed in pencil. Mr Hauna stated that although he was prepared to proceed with tho case ho would before doing so require tho Magistrate to give a ruling on tho points ho had raised. The Magistrate suggested that if the signatures on tho petition were proved to bo thoso of ratepayers the case should be proceeded with. Mr Ostler claimed that as the petition was cot brought under the Counties Act, but under tho Public Works Act, and it was quite clear that tho Council understood the petition because an answer, dated 20th October, was forwarded to tho petitioners from the Council, stating that after having inspected the gate they had resolved not to remove if. He contended that if it could be proved that the petition was signed L>y five ratepayers, it was sufficient under the Public Works Act. Mr Ifauna, however, claimed that it was necessary that all petitions submitted to local bodies should comply with tho Counties Act. The petition was not ono that the Council was bound to take notico of.

Tho Magistrate said that lie would have to take time to consider the point raised, as it was tho first occasion he had had it brought under his notico. Mr Hauna asked that tho Magistrate should decide there aud then as he had been instructed that iu the event of the petition being established as genuine a'counter petition would bo lodged. The Magistrate again remarked that ho would have to take time to consider tho point. Mr Ostler : What Mr Hanna wants is to get the members of the Council together and to get someone busy so as to lodge a counter petition, If every ratepayer iu the County, outside the district, sigued a petition that the gate should be left intact, it would have no bearing on the matter. He claimed that the Couucil could not at that stage raise the point that tho petition was invalid because they had answered it as boing a valid petition. lie intended to call fifteen witnesses and he objected against tho consideration of a question that had not arisen. ! The Magistrate suggested that Mr Hanna might have notified the \ petitioners of his intention to raise tho point, so that tho merits of the last could bo arrived at without delay and expense. Mr Hauna urged that ho hid dote everything neeessiry in the matter. SVh.it the Council required was a ruling in regard to tho whole position, lie was prepared to go on but not without a ruling on the point ho had raised because ho was averse to spending the ratepayers' money on proceedings that might prove futile. Ilia point wis that in tho event of the Magistrate giving judgment iu tho Council's favour on a case heard on an invalid petition it would be open to other parties to still put the Council to tin j expense of contesting a valid poti- j tion. |

Mr Ostler said that if His Worship felt bound to adjourn tho case ho would require costs. The Magistrate for the third time, again replied that ho did not feel disposed to give a ruling straight away. Mr Ostler objected to aa adjournment and asked tho Magistrate to make a note accoidingly. Ho asked for tho expended of iho adjournment. The Magistrate said that if a fresh petition had to bo drawn up he would not allow co;ts Mr Ostler : Subject to my client'.; counsel I will iumudiately move the Supremo Court to issue a wiit of mandamus to compel the Magistrate to hear the case. At Mr Obtlci's request the Magi trate decided to reservo the question of costs and ho added that he would notify both Counsel as to when he would give his ruliug.