COUNTIES’ DISPUTE.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1922, Page 8

COUNTIES’ DISPUTE.

ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS. INGLEWOOD AND TARANAKI COUNTIES. Somewhat lengthy litigation between the Inglewood and Taranaki County Councils, extending over a period of two years was reviewed in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, when Mr. Justice Reed heard argument on a motion by the Inglewood County Council to set aside an award of the Controller and Auditor-General made in connection with the adjustment of accounts between the two counties. Mr. C. H. Weston appeared in support of the motion, Mr. J. C. Nicholson for the Auditor-General, and Mr. J. H. Qailliam, with him Mr. R. H. Quilliam objected to the motiqp on behalf of the Taranaki County Council.

Following the formation of the new Inglewood County in 1920 an adjustment was necessary with the Taranaki Council, and the Auditor-General gave bis decision on February 2S, 1921. Proceedings to upset the award were begun by the Inglewood Council in April and in July His Honor, Mr. Justice Reed gave judgment in favor of the Inglewood Council the award being, remitted. A new award was made* on December 23 last and objection was again raised by the Inglewood Council, who decided at a meeting in March to move to have the award set aside. One of the Council’s main objections was that the Auditor-General decided •to apportion revenue from the Junction Road reserve, their contention being that the reserve itself should have been divided. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION. At yesterday’s hearing preliminary objection to the proceedings on the grounds that they were out of time was raised by Mr. R. H. Quilliam. He said the rule was that all proceedings to set aside an award must be brought within a reasonable time after the making of the award. In the present ? case, he said, four months elapsed before the proceedings were brought. Mr. Quilliam proceeded to quote authorities from New Zealand cases in support of his contention, and he said that in this case there was every reason why the greatest promptitude should have been followed in view of the length of time over which the proceedings had already extended. Counsel urged that the whole scheme of apportionment contemplated a quick despatch of the order. Only on Saturday last the plaintiff county had filed an affidavit of 39 pages which in itself was an embarrassment. The whole circumstances pointed to unreasonable delay in commencing the proceedings. In reply, Mr. Weston pointed out that the new award was made on December 23. The legal vacation then ensued and there was little time for action before the February sitting. The Taranaki County knew the proceedings were coming on. Mr. J. H. Quilliam said the defendant county did not know the ease was coming on, though he had Some conversation with Mr. Weston as to the probability of proceedings being commenced. Continuing, Mr. Weston said in any case the defendant county could not have been prejudiced by the delay. Although it had been suggested the motion might have been heard_ in Wellington he pointed out such action would have been an unusual procedure. The Inglewood County finally decided to go on with the action on March 22, but the matter had been under consideration previous to that on several occasions and it was generally understood they were going to move for the setting aside of the award. The question was what was a reasonable time under the circumstances and the real proposition was whether the defendant county had been prejudiced. Seeing that the motion was on in time for the present sitting of the Court counsel submitted this disposed of the question. The February sitting of the court would have been* too early. As for the affidavit referred to by counsel for defendant Mr. Weston said it was filed in answer to one from the defendant. Mr. Quilliam urged that when a sum ’ of money was iat issue delay was pre- ' judicial "and in this case left the financial affairs of the county in an indefinite state for two years. His Honor reserved this question and intimated he would proceed to hear the motion.

AMENDMENTS AGREED TO. It was intimated that some amendments on minor issues had been agreed to by the parties. Clause 3 of the award had provided for an annual payment by the Inglewood County Council of £466 19s 8d representing a proportion of interest on special loans. It was contended for the Inglewood Council that this was a payment in perpetuity and it was announced that the Audtior-Greneral, while not admitting that the*award was defective, had consented to an amendment providing for (the reduction of the annual payment •as various loans were wiped out. ■ Another amendment concerned the Inglewood County’s claim to certain closed roads and gravel pits within that county, which they contended should have been given to them by the award. By consent an amendment was entered vesting all real property in the Inglewood County (with the exception of the Junction Road) in the Inglewood County Council. Proceeding with his argument, Mr. Weston said the first ground of the motion was that of misconduct—the Auditor-General agreed to, and had two of the properties revalued, but when he was asked to have the remaining revalued he did not do so. His Honor: Is the Inglewood County better oft’ under this award? Mr. Weston: Yes, but not in as good a position as they consider they should be. The second and third grounds of the motion alleged excessive jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that in two cases the Auditor-General had gone outside his boundaries, first with regard to the disposal of the Junction Road Reserve, and secondly, with regard to a clause in which lie ordered that a certain traction engine had to be sold and the proceeds divided. ' His Honor said it. would have been far better for the Auditor-General to have taken the opinion of the Supreme Court as to the reserve. Mr. J. H. Quilliam said the AuditorGeneral had done so. The opinion given was that he had power to apportion the reserves if he desired to do so, but it did not say that he should adopt this course. Proceeding, Mr. Weston said that the submission on the question of the reserve was that the first award of the * Auditor General w&s silent and that

<m the second occasion he approached the award with a :pre«cenceived opinion. regarding his powers. Argument was ’proceeding wheh Mr. Nicholson raised the objection that Mr. Weston was interpellating partiality. His Honor: Is the Inglewood County Council prejudiced by getting the money instead of the reserves? It certainly might be more dignified in having it in their name. Mr. Weston submitted that the council, through the methods adopted, did not have control of the reserve. v His Honor said the county might desire control for sentimental reasons, but he could not see any practical advantages. REVENUE DIVISION.

It was contended by Mr. Weston that the Auditor-General’s award did not even purport to divide the revenue. It amounted to an order that while the land was vested in the Taranaki County the council should pay a proportion of the money to the Inglewood Council; there was no protection for the latter should the revenue pass into the hands of a third party. His Honor suggested that an arrangement might be come to between the parties to amend the wording if it was faulty, and he said he would look into this question. He intimated that he desired to see the matter fixed up this time. Mr. Weston continued that the next submission was that the Auditor-General had no power to deal with the rentals, and that his power was limited to dealing with the fee simple of the Junction Road reserve. J xU 4. His Honor’s opinion was it seamed that the Auditor-General would have the right to apportion the revenue. , In reply to a question from His Honor, Mr. J. H.’Quilliam said the Taranaki County Council was agreeable to a division of the reserve, and had offered the Inglewood County all that portion of the reserve within the Inglewood County. As the rents from that area were within £2 of the revenue from the portion of the rereserve in the Taranaki County, the offer was a fair one. Mr.- Weston said this had been a shot m the dark, and the Inglewood Council could not accept the offer. His Honor suggested that if both parties could agree to a basis of sub-division a short Bill could be put through the House finally settling the matter. Mr. Quilliam urged that the reason why the Auditor-General had not made a division was that he found insuperable difficulties in the way. Mr. Nicholson said an allocation of revenue was the only equitable one. His Honor suggested some protection might be needed in case of a further division of the Taranaki County. Mr. Nicholson was of opinion that any further division would not affect the trust attached to the reserve. It was further contended for- the plaintiff county that the court had no power to remit to the Auditor-General, as Colonel Coffins, who occupied the position previously and made the award, had since retired; that it would be unfair to the council to refer the matter to the audit office, or to Colonel Coffins, there being evidence which pointed to hostility on the part of the latter. His Honor said he bad not considered two points in plaintiff’s case, namely, the question of whether the motion was in time, and the point regarding power to remit; but he would seriously suggest to counsel that they would be considering the interests of the ratepayers of the respective counties if they could make some sort of arrangement by which the freehold could be vested in the respective councils. Mr. J. H. Quilliam sjaid the council had done their’ best to consider some fair method of appointment, but could not arrive at it.

DECISION RESERVED. After an adjournment to enable him to consult the chairman of the Inglewood Council, Mr. Weston announced that the former did not think his authority permitted him to withdraw the claim to the freehold. His Honor said this was a pity, because if he had to find against the council on the question of time, the other amendments agreed to would go by the board. The case for the defendant county was opened by Mr. J. H. Quilliam. He said counsel for the other side had argued on the assumption that the Auditor-General was an arbitrator. In viewing his position, however, consideration had to be given to the fact that last session, Parliament, by a declaratory amendment, decided that the Auditor-General was not an arbitrator. Mr. R. H. Quilliam replied in detail to the various issues raised by Mr. Weston. Mr. Nichplson addressed the court, supporting the Auditor-General’s award. He controverted the assertion that the Audi-tor-General had approached the question with a pre-conceived idea that he could not apportion the revenue—he had had a decision of the Supreme Court ruling that he had power to make the division if he so desired. Mr. Nicholson said' it was evident from the Inglewood Council’s decision that they wanted to get possession of the reserve and that this was their only complaint. His Hdnor reserved decision.