The Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1903. THE IMPERIAL HOTEL CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 137, 11 June 1903, Page 2

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1903. THE IMPERIAL HOTEL CASE.

There appears every probability of the ratepayers having to piy pretty dearly for tbe blunders made by the Borough Council over the Imperial Hotel. As we understand it Mr 0. Samuel, la'e Borough Solicitor, was rather doubtful regarding the success of the Council in taking action at law and advised certain formalities being complied with. Shortly afterwards Mr Samuel resigned the position of borough solicitor and Messrs Qovett and Quilliam succeeded him. On finding there was danger of litigation between the Council and the proprietor of the Imperial Hotel that firm promptly notified the Oouncit that as they had been legal advisers to Mr fiaynes they mug 1 ; decline to act for ei'her party, The Borough Council then placed the matter in the hands of MefS's Roy and Wilson with the result that tte Council w< re advised not to proceed with the action. At a recent meeting of the Council it was decided to drop the contemplated proceedings but it having been state 1 that tbe advice tendeted by Messrs K>y and; Wilson was based on inaccurate information and on a supposition that certain admissions or statements had been I made by certain members or officers of i the Council, -the matter was again) brought up and discussed and the! previous decision reversed. A resolution was also carried to instruct Messrs Weston and Weston to insitu'e the long delayed proceedings against the proprietor of the Imperial - Hotel. The position is a most unsatisfactory one, and judging by tbe tenor of the discussion at the lasS meeting of the Council, these proceedings are not being taken, so much to vindicate the bye-laws as to give certain gentlemen a chance to exonerate themselves. It is a very serious matter for the ratepayers, and is likely to cast a good deal of money before it is al[ over. It would not be right to discuss here the merits of the case, but we del bound to point out the serious position the Council is being placed ia. The legal advice they have is adverse to proceedings being taken, yet, in tha f ice of this, a resolution is carried to take proceedings, and engage Messrs Weston and Weston to conduot them, Messis Westoa and Weston are absolved of any responsibility in the matter, the Council, in defiance of the advice of the legal advisers chosen by themselves, deciding to go on with the case. The ratepayers are usually held to be protected in the matter of legal expenditure by the locil authority acting strictly according to the advice of their legal advisers. Wh re this advice is not followed, there is lit le doubt tut that the ratepiyers, are justified in objecting to pay the cost, and that the members cou'd be surcharged with it. The propsi course, we submit, was | for the Council to have conferred with their legal cdvisers and pointed out the facts stated at tbe last meeting, and asked to be advised in the light of the fullr information. The division of this question is very instructivp, all the new membsrs, excepting the Mayor, voting against legal proceedings beiuj taken. Had His Worship voted witL the new members the position would have been reversed.