THAMES BOROUGH COUNCIL DISPUTE. McAndrew v. Fraser and Others.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 95, 28 March 1885, Page 3

THAMES BOROUGH COUNCIL DISPUTE. McAndrew v. Fraser and Others.

Auckland, March 25. In this case, which is a motion for injunction, mandamus, etc., and which came on at the Supreme Court to-day, Mr E Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff and in support of the motion ; Mr J. M, Alexander' for the defendants. Mr Hesketh, in opening, said that the action was one in which the plantiff sought declaration of his right in conjunction with Messrs Chappel and Hume to hold tho office of Councillor for the Parawai Ward in the Thames Borough Council. A writ of injunction and mandamus was asked for, besides other relief. Tho statement of facts (which was not disputed) showed that the plaintiff was elected a Councillor for the Parawai ward, that as such Councillor he attended the meetings of the Thames Borough Council, represented his ward there, and acted and voted up till the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Act 1884, which contained in Section 5 a provision for the abolition of any ward containing less than 25 ratepayers,"and its being merged in one of the other ward 3 of the borough, and also divesting the representatives of such abolished ward of their functions. On the passing of that Act, the chief defendant, Colonel Fraser (as Mayor) wrote a letter to the plaintiff, intimating that as the Act had passed, the Parawai Ward was abolished, and he was no longer a Councillor of that ward. Tho plaintiff took exception to this mode of treatment, on the ground that it was first of all necessary for the Council to pass a resolution abolishing the Parawai ward, and declaring with what other ward it should be merged. Such a resolution was subsequently carried upon the casting vote of the Mayor at a meeting, from which the three Councillors of the Parawai Ward were excluded; consequently, by reason of that exclusion, it should be valid. Mr Hesketh was proceeding to argue this point when His Honor said that it seemed too clear to be argued, and therefore he need not trouble about it until the other side had ' been heard. Mr Hesketh then went on to cite authorities, and to answer the objections urged in defendant's plea. Mr Alexander, in reply, contended that from the tenor of the whole Act it wai clearly intended that as soon as it passed all wants failing to answer the required condition ceasea, ipso facto, to exist,and their Councillors to hold office ; that the resolution of the Thames Borough Council passed on the casting vote of the Mayor was all-sufficient for the purpose ; that the resolution was not essential, as if so, in default of it being passed, the plaintiffs as representatives of the abolished Council would be Councillors for life ; and that the plaintiff on coming into court ought to show that he was now entitled to act as Councillor — not merely that he had been so entitled. Mr Hesketh having replied, Bis Honor Mr Justice Gillies upheld his contention, and decided that plaintiff and Ms two fellow Councillors continued in office until the Council in proper form passed a resolution merging Parawai in some other ward, for or against which resolution they were entitled to vote. His Honor also held that the relief prayed for must be as against the Mayor, as the other Councillors had simply expressed their opinion, while he had taken action in excluding the plaintiff.