VICTORY FOR MAYOR

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 536, 13 December 1928, Page 13

VICTORY FOR MAYOR

NEWMARKET SQUABBLE COURT REFUSES MANDAMUS Upholding the Mayor of Newmarket, Mr. S. Donaldson, in an immediate oral judgment, Mr. Justice Frazer refused in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon to issue a writ of mandamus compelling him to put a certain motion relating to alleged libellous statements, against councillors of the borough. The proceedings arose out of strong exception taken by several councillors to statements in a local news sheet called “The Newmarket Gazette,” which accused them of inducing the council to dabble in land, and contained the phrase “monkeying in land values.” Accordingly the council formulated the following motion which, on August 2, was brought forward by Or. H. Gregory, but which the Mayor refused to put to the meeting: “That this committee views with some concern the misleading and improper statements circulated throughout the district b3' a body calling itself the ‘Newmarket Progressive Association* in a paper called the ‘Newmarket Ratepa3 r ers»* Gazette,* and with a view to refuting the said statements, and of stopping any further issue of the gazette, a copy be handed to the borough solicitor with a request that he advise what steps should be taken to this end. and that the town clerk be instructed to confer with the solicitor and make available any record or minutes which the solicitor may require.” Mr. E. H. Northcroft, for the Deput3'Mayor, Mr. G. E. Smerdon, and six other councillors, contended that Mr. Donaldson had failed to perform his statutory duties and challenged his honesty by suggesting that the Mayor had habitually adopted the expedient of refusing to put motions because he was in a minority of the council. On behalf of Mr. Donaldson, Mr. 11. M. Rogerson characterised as entirely incorrect and unfounded a statement of Mr. Northcroft that defendant was responsible for the newspaper in question. EXERCISING DISCRETION The roading scheme which had been at the back of the squabble had been finall3’ turned down by the Local Government Loans Board, 3-et some councillors had insisted on going on with this costli' litigation. In holding that the motion in dispute was not a matter fairly chargeable upon the ratepayers, but only upon the individuals concerned, who had their own remedy, the Mayor was merely exercising a discretion which was undoubtedly vested j in him. “I do not require time to make up m3' mind,” said his Honour. “The paper ;in question has published statements« ! reflecting upon a section of the counI eillors, but not on the council as a j whole.” The matter complained of did \ not relate to the business of the coun- | cil or to municipal questions, but was ; purely a matter affecting certain indi- | vidua 1 councillors. From their offer to ' pa3* the expenses themselves the councillors appeared to have some doubts as to whether the action contemplated in the motion was a council matter. The Maior of a borough was more than a mere chairman of a meeting; and it seemed very necessar3’ that he should have the right of excluding motions that did not in any way deal with the business of the council or with municipal affairs. An honest exercise of his discretion within, his jurisdiction was not correctable b\' mandamus, even jif he happened to be wrong in the • opinion of the court, concluded the i Judge.