ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 May 1921, Page 6

ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS.

LOCAL BODIES' DISPUTE TARANAKI AND INGLEWOOD COUNTIES. CASE NOT CONCLUDED. His Honor Mr. Justice Reed resumed hearing in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday of the legal argument on the motion by the Inglewood County Council to set aside an award made by the Auditor-General in an adjustment of accounts between the Inglewood and Taranaki County Councils. Messrs. C. H. Weston and H. R. Billing appeared for the Inglewood Council. and the Taranaki County Council was represented by Messrs. J. H. and R. H. Quilliam. Mr. J. C Nicholson appeared for the Auditor-General. Continuing his statement of the case for the Inglewood County Council. Mr. Weston said it was clear that the Au-ditor-General had delegated his powers to the district audit inspector (Mr. Richardson), and if it was held that the enquiry was a proper one it would have to be shown that the Auditor-General had power to delegate his authority. Counsel submitted it was the intention of the regulations that if the AuditorGeneral did not personally act some other person appointed by the GovernorGeneral should hold the enquiry. He quoted authorities to support the opinion that in such cases the reports received regarding the investigations should be placed before the bodies concerned, before an agreement could be made. The Taranaki County Council had done their best to endeavor to retain their grasp on "the present award.

TARANAKI COUNTY’S CASE. In opening the case for the Taranaki County Council, Mr. J. H. Quilliam said the Inglewood council had been proceeding entirely on the assumption that the procedure nF was an arbitration, under the Arbitration Act. If this was not so then the application to set aside the award must fail. He submitted that the function of the AuditorGeneral in the present instance was not, under section 15 of the Counties Act, an arbitration, and that, even if it could be treated as an .arbitration, it was not one governed by the Act of 1908. They had already admitted that if it was one they could not contend that the procedure was regular and pro per. The Taranaki County Council had acted in good faith, and there were no merits in the application before his Honor The main contention, however, was that the Court had no power to set aside the award made. A feature of the case was the fixed determination of the Inglewood County Couilcil not to come to an agreement with the Taranaki council, and not to agree to the award made by the Auditor-General. They wanted a commission, and persisted in this attitude, the matter eventually being taken up by the AuditorGeneral.

TASK FOR THE AUDITOR. Regarding the objections raised by the Inglewood County Council, Mr. Quilliam said that the council had had every opportunity of placing their views before the Auditor-General, and they now complained they were not heard. The Andi tor-General appointed the audit inspector to carry out the work, and he was a person in close touch with the accounts of local bodies. It was the first demand ever made to set aside an award of the Auditor-General, and according to affidavits filed the procedure in this case was along the as had been adopted in all similar cases. The basis taken was the bock values, and counsel said it was the only on? which could have been selected. For the purpose the balance sheet of the Taranaki council as at March 31, 1920, was used,

and work of taking out the figures could be quite properly delegated by the Auditor-General to someone else, as was dorfh in this case. There was no-, one better Qualified for the class of work than the audit inspector, and th? award having been made was, counsel affirmed, final and binding. In regard to the matter of the endowments it was impossible for the Auditor-General to interfere with them, as they were set aside for the use of the Taranaki County in the upkeep of the Junction Road, part of which was still in the county. Counsel ventured the opinion that if, by any gieans, an allocation of the endowment was made to the Inglewood County Council, and part of the funds paid over, the audit inspector would tag the balance sheet on making the usual inspection of the Taranaki Countv Council’s finances. Mr. Quilliam submitted rliat the motion should be dismissed. “NOT ARBITRATION.”

Continuing the case for the Taranaki county, Mr. R. H. Quilliom put forward the following proposals: (1) That the functions of the Auditor-General, under section 15 of the Counties Act, were not those of an arbitrator, nor Was the procedure that of arbitration; (2) section 15 of the Counties Act constituted the Auditor-General a statutory tribunal, which was altogether outside the Arbitration Act; (3) The Court could not interfere with the finding of this statutory tribunal: its powers and discretion were absolute.

In support or the above opinions, Mr Quilliam quoted authorities, and said that even if the proceedings in dispute were an arbitration the provisions of the Arbitration Act were so inconsistent with section 15 of tile Counties Act that they could not apply. He believed that, in framing the statutes the Legislature recognised that the question was one of adjustment of accounts, and that Hie Auditor-General was the proper person to appoint. If it had been a question of valuation basis the ValuerGeneral would have been appointed. The position as particularly affecting the Auditor-General was touched on by Mr. Nicholson. He said that the procedure in question was not arbitration, and there was nothing in the Act to show that it was. Being a Government department, the ruling of the Auditdrieneral would have to be accepted or else the question would have to go to the only authority to which the Audi-tor-General was amenable—Parliament. Regarding the question of faring evidence, counsel said that even in an arbitration it did not necessarily follow that there must be any formal heading or taking of evidence. The point raised as is the delegation of authority was also replied to by Mr. Nicholson. He said that where a head officer of a Government department engaged eno of. his own expert assistants to help him in an investigation of the k’nd und?r review, it was not delegation in the ordinary .%«*» WM .* djffwwwfcj*

claimed, between co-operation among officers of a Government department, where the department was really the body deciding the dispute, and the case of a private arbitrator who referred part of the question to someone * else. As counsel for the Taranaki county had stated the only question on which the motion could succeed were fraud, incompetency of the Judge, and excessive jurisdiction, and none of these features were present in the ease. The case occupied the whole day, and will be resumed this morning.