AROWHENUA TOWN BOARD ELECTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1803, 16 October 1888, Page 2

AROWHENUA TOWN BOARD ELECTION.

An inquiry into petitions signed by Messrs J. Ashwell, J. Spooner, E. Brown, J. Brown, G. J. Mason, and J. Marshall against the election of G. Edgeler aad W. Bryan to the Arowhenus Town Board was heard yesterday at 9,30 a.m., before 0. A. Wray, Esq., E.M. The grounds on which the above ratepayers petitioned was that /Messrs Edgeler and Bryan had not sufficient property to qualify them for a seat on the Board.

Mr Raymond appeared in support of tie petition, and Mr Hay for Messrs Edgeler t.nd Bryan, Great interest appeared to have been taken in the matter, and the Court was crowded.

I Mr Raymond in opening the case for the petitioners stated that the Arowhenua Town Board was a body of five members incorporated under the Town Districts Act, 1881, and that it was constituted on this 21 st July, 1886. The first election of members was held in that year, the members holding office for a biennial period. The second general election was held on Sept. 19th last, when Mr Edgeler was returned as elected, and among the unsuccessful candidates were Messrs Joseph Ashnell and J. T. M. Hayhurst, The Town Districts Act, 1881, section 2, incorporated with it the Rating Act of 1876, and the Regulation of ijecal Elections Act, 1876. Mr Raymond stated that the present petition was based on the want of qualification in Mr Edgeler ; that he did uot bring himself within section 16 of the Act, which required that no person should be qualified to sit us a member “ unless he shall be rated for the purposes of the Act at an annual rental of ten pounds at least,” It was true that the repeal of “ The Rating Act 1876” by “The,Rating Act 1882 ” substituted a “ capital value ” for an “ annual value ” but he poiuted out that by section 58 of “ The Rating Act 1882” that Act was incorporated with “The Town Districts Act 1881;” in lieu of the Act of 1876. The Act'of 1882, moreover, h o l

urged, by section 14 provided a guide for the construction of other Acta when any inconsistency arose through the alteration in the system of rating, and provided that for revenue purposes a rateability of jd in £ on the capital value was tantamount to a rateability of Is in the £ on the former annual value, and for voting purposes £IOO of capital value was to be considered as »n equivalent of £5 annual value. He would prove that Mr Edgeler was only ration property, of the capital value of £s6;.ai|fl be submitted he was clearly ineligible for election, A. W. Gaze, Glerk -to-the»Arowhenua Town Board said : The first election was held onHbe QlstAugust, 1886, and in September this year a fresh election jrjSii,'.. (Je!3£r“TK, produced the cate ‘rell, 'George', Edgeler, gardener, was rated nt £4O. He waa rated alio (or two other sections for £l6. These were the only properties he was rated for. The rate struck was one halfpenny in the pound, and Mr Edgeler’s rates Came to 2s 4d. Mr Joseph Ash well was rated st £250, and Mr J. T. M. Hayhurst at £274, Mr J. Spooner was rated at £l6O, Mr E. Brown at £1471, Mr G." J. Mason at £2O, Mr J. Brown at £176, *nd Mr J. Marshall at,£loo. Mr Edgeler has sat bn the Board, sad took part in its daliberatiene. To Mr Hay : The last eleotisn was held on the 19th ,of September. There are no annual values appearing on the rate book. ■ I i

Mr Hay’: What is the annual value of Edgoier’a property I f i Mr Raymond objected to this question. It was irrelevant, as the sole question was at what value was Edgeler rated—not what was the value as a, fact.' To, get a t the real value was useless. It Would mean leading a huge mass .of opiniatiye evidence.. ,

Mr Hay laid the objection raised rnally in* volved the whole issue. Ha would contend that the Town Districts Act requiring an normal rental had to be supplied. Section 14 of. the, Ruling Act, 1889,. it was suggested, supplied the deficiency, caused by the alterati on of the system of rating, but he contended that it bad ne real application. The first part Fof< that section dealt with the power of the local body in cdculating their rates;, the-second part, which his friend wished to import into the case, bad only reference,to a,calculation for the purposes of voting. . There was a scale under which one man may have only one Tote and another five votes, and the latter part of the section on which his friend relied really referred to that, and not to the qualification of :a member. The qualification of ' a member was that he should be. i rated at an annual rental of £lO. , The) annudi rental was charged the capital! value of the property, but there was nothing in .either Act to show what capital value was equal to an annual rtntrl of £lO,. There was no annual valuation, and as it was on annual valuation alone the qualification rested, there was nothing for it but to declare (he whole election,void,, the clerk to make out an annualvalualion for election purposes, and to .elect.,new mem* bers under that valuation. He 1 cited the case of Cook v. Butler, 42, L.J., 36. Mr Raymond in reply saidthe ...answer to his friend’s argument war obfious. The proposition that the clerk of the Board should prepare a, list of , f annual values was not authorised by the Legislature. Such a list would be ultra viret the

i Board, and would possess no legislative vitality. This course was suggested be* cause some explanation of the fiasco that would be produced by tihe general, avoid- - anoe of the election had to be offered. The general avoidance was a redwtio ui, ahiurdum oi the respondent’s argument. The true explanation of > the 'Legislative I discrepancy was that dfferad'by'him. Fe I referred to section sof the Interpretation Act, 1888, whrchhadonlyjustcome into force, and which contained : some Instruct f ive rules for guidance jin‘ interpreting statutes. Section 5 subsection 7 provided that every Act should be considered , remedial and for the public good “ and 1 shall accordingly receive such fair, large, , and liberal construction and interpretation as will beat ensure the attainment of the, object of the Act according to its true intent, ’meaning and spirit.” His Worship said the question 1 was one of some nicety. Did 'the other petition stand on the same footing I ', : Mr Hay said Bryan’s qualification stood higher. He was rated at £l7scapital value. As to this he would submit that even if Edgeler’s election was veid Bryan’s was not. Accepting the interpretation offered by the other-side, the liability of a member should be, for ten shillisg rates only. Now, applying the first .half of section 14 relating to the alteration in the rating system, this imposed a rateability of |d in the £ on the capital value in lieu of i s in the £ on the annual value would'need a capital value of £l6O only, so that Bryan bad £ls to spare, • As regards tli* latter part of section 14, this had reference to “ voting purposes ’’ only, and by this (be qualification of voters only was dealt with. Mr Raymond argued that the first part of section 14 was cogent as arriving at the intent of Parliament aa- regards cases such as Edgeler’s, as ,it showed his liability was ,3s 6d only, but'Jt was intended to deal with the- duties of the Board from a fiscal point ; on!y. The latter part of the section having reference to “voting purposes” covered this case. This was a wide term, aril referred to election questions generally. “ Toting " referred quite as much to persons “ voted for” as to persons “ voting for.” His Worship said the question really turned upon whether section 14 of “ The Rating Act 1882” Applied- to.'iinterpret “ The Town Districts Act 1881,” section 16. It seemed to him that it did. Then another question arose On BryaP’s election as to whether the former or the latter portion of section 14 applied, and it appeared to him that the latter portion of the section applied, and that a £2OO capital value was nrieded. He therefore declared the election of Messrs Edgeler acd Bryan void, and that Messrs Ashvpell and Hiyhurst were elected jn their, stead. The cost of advertising to bs paid by the j respondents.’ Later on in the day His Worship intimated his intentionbfreconsidering the matter, and holding it in abeyance until Monday next. - -- -