MOA DISTRICT MERGER.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 307, 5 June 1915, Page 2

MOA DISTRICT MERGER.

SUPREME COURT DECISION. The decision of Mr. Justice Edward? in the. motion of John Williams to quash Lho special order purporting to be made l>y the Taranaki County Council to annex a portion of the Moa Riad District ind add it to the Mangorei riding of the county has been delivered. After outlining the facts, his Honor j lays: —In my opinion the petition, which complied with clause (b) of section 10 of j the Counties Act, 1908, was final as to, tho question then before the council, and! it was not open to any of the persons I who had signed that petition to nullify its effect by their subsequent attempt to get rid of their signatures after the period prescribed by clause (b) had expired, upon the simple ground that they had signed the petition under a misapprehension. To put any other construction upon clause (b) would introduce an element of doubt and confusion into a very simple matter, which is very simply provided for by that clause, and might result in an injustice. It may well be that if any ratepayer who had signed tho petition under clauso (b) had repented of his action before that petition had been presented he could, by timely notice to the persons promoting the petition, have required his signature to bo struck out, but in that case the ratepayers who opposed the annexation might possibly have obtained the signatures of other ratepayers to make up the 'number required to defeat the proposed annexation. When the petition had been lodged it at once took effect under clause (b). After that it was, in my opinion, too late for any ratepayer who had signed the petition to repent of and endeavor to nullify his action. It is, indeed, very difficult to understand how any ratepayer who signed the petition could really have done so under a misapprehension, as the document is of the simplest possible character. If this were the subject of enquiry it would probably merely be found that the ratepayers who subsequently sought to withdraw their names from the petition had come to the conclusion upon reconsideration of the matter that they had been' wrong in supposing that the proposed annexation would prejudice their interests. This clearly could not be .a ground for destroying the effect, then complete, of the petition. In. the absence of any suggestion of fraud in procuring the signatures to the petition it is, however, in my opinion, clear that the matter >8 not a subject for inquiry at all. The petition was duly signed, duly verified, and duly presented within the time limited by the statute, and it at once took effect under the statute, without any further act on the part of any person. There can be no reason at all for strain, ing the Statute in order to carry out the supposed wishes of a majority of the ratepayers. If, after more careful consideration, the majority of the ratepayers desire the proposal ,to be carried into effect, nothing has been suggest-jd which would prevent the proceedings from being begun de novo, This is the course which should have been taken. There must, therefore, be an order as moved. The applicant will have his costs of the proceedings, which I fix at £l2 12s, against' the corporation of the county.