CASE AGAINST THE BOARD

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 34, 30 June 1914, Page 2

CASE AGAINST THE BOARD

DECISION AGAINST MTMRfIRg. J In Uhie Magistrate's Court, N«w Plymouth, yesterday, Mr. A. Orooke, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case in which the Taran&ki Education Board sued Harold TrimWe (chairman) and other members of the Board for £5 lis, the amount surcharged against the Board by the Audit Department. Mr. Crooke, in .reviewing the circumstances of the case, remarked that tlhe facts were not in dispute. In 1012 tlw Government of the day had called a conference of delegates from local bodies to consider a Local Government Bill, one of the provisions of which proposed to transfer to Provincial CouncJs the control of education, abolishing Education Boards altogether. The i-ducation Boards, who were of opinion that the cause of education wouHd suffer, decided to (Kold a conference on the day "before the Government conference, to protest against the proposed transfer. The delegates to -the Government conference were drawn from each hospital district In the Dominion. There not being sufficient time to call a meeting of the Board, the chairman asked Mr. Morton to attend the conference, and also to see the Minister for Education on several matters whidfo were in negotiation between ,tlio Board ant! tha Education Department. This Mr. Morton did. On hisi return from Wellington he reported to the Beard tke rwsuilt of the conference, and of his interview with, the Minister. The repo T t on the doings of the conference was adopted, and Die waa voted £7 7s towards his expenses. The Audit Department, <under section 120 of the Public Revenues Act, 1910, surcharged the amount on members of the Board. The sum of £1 16s was repaid, and the present ease was brought for fa lis. The question which he had to decide was wflvether the payment to Mr. Morto.i was in terms 'of section 3 of the Education Act, 1910, which provided for the payment to members of "expenses reasonably incurred and actually paid by tlwsm in coming to or from any meeting of the Board or a committee of the Board, or in making any official visit when appoint ;d to do so by the Board." Was, then, the conference an official visit? The adoption 'by the members of the Board of the report, and the vote wvich fallowed, was a confirmation of the appointment by the chairman. I* dealing with Mir definition of the words Official visit," Mr. Orookc remarked that the meaning varied with the subject matter. In default of a legal definition, he took that of Webster, "in connection with an office or trust." 1 hen the question arose, did Mr. Morton's visit come within the bounds of this definition? He held that it was not part of the duty of a member of the Board, nor of Education Boardx generally, to hold or attend at conferenges m protest against proposed educational legislation. They were merely concerned with the administration J education under existing laws. The powers of a member were only co-ex-tensive 'with tiljosc ot a Board. There still remained the visit to the Minister tor wlueh expends had been paid. Mr. Weston had contended that Mr. Morton had not been appointed to make that v.sit, and therefore could not claim expenses. Although Mr. Morton's report dealt with that visit, the resolution confirming Uhe chaknmn's action was silent on tho point. The voucher certamly referred to it, but it was not suggested that the membors of the ■Board ever saw it, and he could not coramor what they would 'have done if it had ibeen shown to them. The chairman could not himself make the appointment, and the Board did not bv resolution confirm it. Judgment wai therefore given for tlhe plaintiffs for £•> lis with costs f-2 17s. Leave was given to lodge an appeal if it were de-