TRANSPORT “SIX” CHALLENGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 686, 11 June 1929, Page 11

TRANSPORT “SIX” CHALLENGED

Right of Reappointment OPPONENTS INVOKE LAW WITH a view to upsetting the reappointment of the City Council’s six representatives on the Transport Board, preliminary proceedings to a Supreme Court action have been initiated. Mr. E. 11. Northeroft having been retained as counsel for the movers. Mr. J. A. C. Allnm, one of the six, said yesterday that he was completely mystified as to why the members had been written to. He considered it a matter for the City Council.

’J’HE board members who will be the

subject of the litigation are Messrs. J. A. C. Allum, G. Ashley, G. Baildon, M. J. Coyle, A. J. Entriean and E. J. Phelan. The action is being brought primarily by Messrs. M. Turkington, F. W. Jeffers and G. Wigg, in their capacity as electors.

The chief point at issue revolves round the words “Another or others” in section 6, clause (d), of the Auckland Transport Board Act, 1928, which relates to the right of the various local authorities in the transport area to recall their representative or representatives on the board before May 31, 1929.

The Municipal Corporations Act and other similar statutes stipulate that a person or local body preparing to test the validity of proceedings such as those now in question must give a month’s notice of a proposed legal action. Accordingly the plaintiffs notified the six members of the board on Saturday afternoon. HISTORY OF REAPPOINTMENT

The six members were removed on the evening ot May 28 by the City Council sitting in special meeting, and on the motion of Cr. T. Bloodwortli. The intention of the mover had been to remove the members and withhold appointment of others until after May 31, 1929, when Cr. Bloodworth

hoped that a popular election would be precipitated. The city solicitor, Mr. J. Stanton, however, interpreted the Transport Act as requiring an immediate appointment or reappointment at that meeting or at an adjournment. The meeting was accordingly adjourned until May 30 and the council then reappointed all six representatives. At the conclusion of that meeting Cr. J. R. Lundon hinted at Supreme Court proceedings. It is contended by the movers in the action that the council went beyond its powers in reappointing its former representatives. They hold that the Act requires the council to appoint persons other than those who were recalled. INTERESTING DOCUMENT

“I don’t know why this very interesting document has been sent to me,” remarked Mr. Allum, when asked yesterday if he intended to take steps to meet the move. “I am completely puzzled and you can say I am quite unconcerned with what happens, and intend to get on with the board’s work,” he added.

The City Council has not been served with any such notification, the town clerk’s office reported. Mr. F. S. Morton said that he was still discussing his position with his appointers, the five local bodies comprising the No. 3 transport area.