BOROUGH BYE-LAW CASE-IMPERIAL HOTEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 125, 28 May 1903, Page 2

BOROUGH BYE-LAW CASE-IMPERIAL HOTEL.

, TO THE EDITOR. , Sir, —It would appau- from the report of the discussion in tin Council , 'as if Mr Roy and 1 differed in our res-i p.'ctive Jegil opiaions, and this is scaroly fair to him or to mysslf. Hid my letter to tin Town Olerk (delivered to the caretakar before 4 p m., and laid by him opsn on the Town Clerk's table several hours baforethi Council met, bud not unfortunately noticed by the Town Olerk until nexfcdiy) beea hid before the Council tin pjsition would have been char. I sea no reason to differ from tin opinion now given by Mr Roy on the facts seated by him now, The veriest tyrj ia the law could scarcely err in such a matter. You repirt the Mayor as saying -" I-, was evident tha solicitor was responsible. He had advised the Council had a claim on Mr Riynes, but Mr Roy took the opposite course" This is quite wrong. The c'ient, and no 1 ; the solicitor, is responsible for thi correstness of tho infarnution as te facts, which it is the duty of the cheat to supply to the solicitor. The so'icitor his to advise on thehwrs app'iel to thos) facts. Mr Roy had beforo him facts of which he had acquired sp-cid knowledge when acting as Bolicror tor the contractor in resp'ct of his deilings with Mr Riyne», and a!s) of c immujications between mjunars of th Council anl i s offices and Mr Riynei and those ac'ing for hin, which wore not made known to ma. If thi facstated by Mr Roy, in hU opinion of 122 nd May, 1903, had been befjre me when I wrote my opinion oj tin 19; h Dacembjr 1902, I havj no dju'ii I should have viewed tho legil aspaot of the cis 3as he doa>. Toa iking you in au-.icipitioa for publishing bhii letter, —I Dm, etc , I Oliver Samuel. i New Plymouth, 27 ;h May, 1903. (