BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 194, 18 June 1903, Page 3

BOROUGH COUNCIL.

1M 'ERIAL HOTFL OASE. NO FU&THEK AOTION. I A sp:cial mfe*ing* of th? Council was hflld on Wednesday afternoon to consider Mtssra Weston and Weston's Opinion on th*. Impend H-tei owe. Pre«*nt: His Worship tha Mayor (Mr B. Cock), Or?. Wood, Bellringer, Smith, i Brooking, Collis, Conned, Tiscb, and Alexander. Tbe Mayor seated that; ns the time for t <kiog aotion, should the Council so decide, r< to breaches of the byeUws respecting the rebui ding of the Imperial Hotel would expire in a day

or two, he though*; it his duty to call the Council to-ethrr to consider Messrs Weston and Weston's opinion. The opinion, which Messrs Weston and Weston stated had been written ifter much careful thought, was then read. After alluding to tbe fact that the ho'el was built in two pirts and thit the question as to whether the bye-laws were observed in the ereotion of the first pirt was not under consideration, they pointed out that the main question was whether the extension, or second part, was built in conformity with the bye-laws. The various | incidents and correspondence, etc., relating to the nutter from 30th June, 1902, to the present time were briefly sat forth and the position summ id up as folio xs: 1. In the erection of the extension the bye-laws were disregarded by Mr Raynes. 2. To respect the notice cf 24th December at this stage would entiil on Mr Raynes an expenditure of £6OO or more.

They were of rpinion that the plans and specific I'ions of the extension should have been approved by the inspector, and a permit obtained prior to commencing the wok, and that such permit mu3t t>9 in. writing and no' verbal. That Sir R.yns' failure to comply with the inspector's requirements mast be regarded as a breach of the bye laws, u01e39 a satisfactory explanation is afforded. That Mr R >y's opinion was apparently influence! by evidence which he obtlined hinnelf and lid not appear on the papers furnish d him, ann, so far as tSey were aware, was not communicated to the Council, Assuming that the Uou ciloould go bjhind its own bye-lawn, even if promises were made by the Mayor or individual Councillors that Mr Rayoes' disregard ■f the bye hws woul i ba over'oDked, it would r<Bt with Mr Rayn?s to show that such prr raises were by special resolution of the Council directed to be made, but there was nothing before '.hem (Messrs Westing) to show that promises were made A' the sime tim i they were of opinion the Oouocil could noB ignore the bye-hwg, which bound everyone, including the Cbuncil, until repealed. Thus in thpir opirim (hi apparent silence of the Council between July and Dacember, the abs nee of formal complaint by the In : p'ctor, and h : s occasional visits to th< building cannot affurd an answer to Mr Raynes when charged wi h breaking the bye .'aws. Oertaioly the Inspector could aot dispense with the cross wil', the «rection of which in the cireums'ances (under bye law 5) had b come imperative. They considered it w 8 tos late for the Ojuncil to proceed for an infringement of bye law 5 in failing to >btain a parm't before the builling was commenced in July. They did not think the "ex enslon" itself would be regarded as a new building whhin the meaning of bye-law 5, Upon the whob they were of opinion chat ioformition can. be laid agaiust Mr Raynes for : 1. Failing o eomp' tely C3mtruot 'he cross walk 2. Failing to completely construct the back wdl ip trick. 3. Providing iron doors of less than the n quired thickness. They did not tbiuk it was too late to proceed in respect of these three breiches. They were of opinion that in this case conp'iance with the provisions of bye laws 4 and 5 in regarl to the three points mentioned could be exacted at any time, and that the notice of 'toembfrwas sufficient. The maximum fine in these cases was £5

la occlusion:— (1) Tbey dmbted the legal right of the Council to institute proceedings for the mere purpose of exonerating its members from bl<me. Public man must exp-ct to bi criticised indblira'd ho deserving they may bi. (2) Unless the Council was prepared to act under bye-law 345, or to take stops in the Supreme Oourr, by it.junction or otherwise, to insure the completion of 'ha cross wa'ls and the substitution of brick for woodwork in the r»-k wall of :he extension, they cou'd n>t see that übstantiil adv tntige coul 1 result from laytng an information in respect of infringement of bye-lawp. Logically, if Ylr Raynes had broken tho bye-laws he should be required to do thit whic'a under the bye-laws he ought <o have done. Yet they thought tbe Supreme Cuurt would not at this stage disturb the hotel unless it saw no way of esiape. flu imposition of a fine was one thinp, the disturbar.o of a building w.s another. Unquestionably Mr Raynes should have been proceeJed against; long ago.

The Mayor cwidered that Messrs Weston and W eston were not asked to give an opinion regarding tbe exouoration of Councillors, and if such "comoay r0.," was written it was time thelawyers were shaken up. The evidence got by Mr Roy as to promises nwde to Raynes that he should nos ba proceedel Against was total y without foundation, and Oouncillo b h id only to go through the newspaper reports of the Couucii's \ meetings to see -lut Or. B coking bad ; always proce.'diass b;ing takeo. Such ailegai evidence was of a hole and corner kind, and Mr Roy \ -ibould have consulted the Council on i i" before giving his opinion. The la'e Oou c 1 was fr c e frjm all bkme in the nutter. i

Or. Alexander moved, that afcer hearing Messrs Westou and Wesson's opinion and in view of the o'her legal opinions given on the c S3 that the matter be dropped. Or. Sm ; th s conded the mo-ion. ' Or. B.cokingwas in favour cf taking action,

Or. Wood opposed further proceedings.

OrOonnettwaa not inclined to proceed further in the nutter. He still con-j sidercd Mr Roy'd course cf procedure an extraordinary one as he had nevar aken the troub'e to consult the Council as to the alleged evidence of promises madp. He was willing to put down £lO of his own to go on with | Che mater, bnt declined to be a party I to spelling the ratepayers money over legal proceedings in this case. Things had come to a very b.d state when the Council was over-ridden in the way it had been in this matter, Or. Tisch considered the Council hid a vary bid case, and he w-* Ofpjsed to pto;e 9 jing furl her with it,

Or. Oollfs v;as glad Messrs Weston and Weston's opinion had been taken, »od, in the face of that opinion, he did not think the Council was justified in on. A*; thd sama time he felt it was mortifying to the Council to be placed in such a position. Cr, Alexander emphasised the fact that, though the Council was going to drop tie rase, the public must under- ', staud ihe Council was not miking a precedent, and that past errors would ha avoided in futu-e. Ho denounced { Mr Kiynes' action over the business, | a>:d considered it would perhaps have i tho effuctof s'iffening the Council in their action in future. The motion then carried, Cr. BrookiDg being the only dissentient.