LIABILITY OF PUBLIC BODIES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2083, 9 August 1890, Page 4

LIABILITY OF PUBLIC BODIES.

A judgment of considerable importance to public bodies—especially County Councils—was given on Thursday at Christchurch in banco as under: — STOWBLL AND ANOTHER V. GEEAL DINE COUNTY COUNCIL. This was was a case in which the plaintiffs—one being a ratepayer in the County of Waimate and the other a ratepayer of the County of Geraldine—applied for a mandamus to compel the defendants to take all necessary steps for re-establishing proper bridge communication at the Lower Pareora. After dealing with the authorities on the subject of the legal obligations created by the sections of the Counties Act, his Honor proceeded to discuss the question whether the County Council was bound to keep all county roads and the bridges and ferries therein in the maximum state of sufficiency and efficiency in which they might have received them or to which they might have been raised, independently of any changed condition as to population, traffic, or otherwise. In such a case a bridge made for the purposes of a goldfield which proved useless would have to be kept in repair at great cost, and would be a great hardship on local bodies. The council of a county had full power to form, construct, improve, repair, and maintain all country roads and all bridges and ferries therein. 'J he language is permißßive-=-nofc compulsory. He held the council had discretionary power a power not confined to ordering them to make or construct such roads and bridges, but extending to compelling them to maintain, repair, and reconstruct them. If the obligations as to extent and character of the repair and maintenance is not dis*, cretionary but absolute, and one which can be enforced by any ratepayer, it would seem unnecessary to provide such a check on its performance as the controlling power held by the Government. He thought the

plaintiffs had failed to show any ground for the interference by the Court with the discretion, admittedly honestly exercised, of the defendants as to the traffic requirements of the road in question. Judgment for defendants, costs as per scale as if £6OO claimed and disbursements.

Mr Joynt for plaintiffs; Mr Haggitt for defendants. 1