TRANSPORT ACTION

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 848, 17 December 1929, Page 10

TRANSPORT ACTION

QUESTION OF COSTS “SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTED” More is to be heard of the recent Supreme Court action brought by certain ratepayers to test the validity of the Auckland City Council’s reappointment of its six representatives on the Transport Board. At Thursday evening’s meeting of the City Council, Cr. W. H. Murray will move the following motion in accordance with notice duly given: “That in view of the findings of Mr. Justice Herdman in the action Malcolm Turkington and others against Edward John Phelan and others, to the effect that this council’s acts and resolutions on May 28 and 30, 1929, in removing its own six nominee members of the Auckland Transport Board, and in reappointing the same six instead of others to the vacancies, were ‘incomplete/ ‘irregular/ ‘ineffective/ ‘nugatory/ and ‘contrary to the law’ (Auckland Transport Act, 1925), the City Solicitor be now instruct**! to take no further steps on council’s or defendant’s behalf to obtain payment from the plaintiffs of any of the costs awarded to the defendants in the judgment.” Another notice of motion, in similar terms to one given earlier by Cr. J. R. Lundon, has been forwarded by Cr. Murray. He seeks to secure the forwarding of the resignation of Mr. J. A. C. Allum, chairman of the board, by the Town Clerk to the secretary of the board. Cr. Murray states that the resignation came into the possession of the Mayor, Mr. G. Baildon, as deputy-chairman of the board, and is now filed at the Town Hall.