The Parawai Petitions.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3863, 17 May 1881, Page 2

The Parawai Petitions.

H. Kenritfk, Esq., R.M., Wao had been appointed to hold a Commission of Enquiry into certain allegations made by Mr F 0. Dean and others concerning a petition of certain Farawai ratepayer., sat at the Court House at 10 this morning. Mr Tyler appeared for those making the allegations, and Mr Brassey for the petitioners. . ... * Mr Tyler drew attention to the para--1 graph in this morning s Advertiser i regarding the Court, which was liable to 1 give a talse impression. Mr Brassey's [clients were not the Parawai District I Board, but certain ratepayers of Parawai. ': Mr Brassey raised au objection to the ' effect that the Commissioner's CommisI sion was not under the hand of the

Governor

The Commissioner said be had been notified by the Colonial Secretary that he had been appointed, and lie was perfectly satisfied that he had power to act.

Mr Tyler then opened the case.. He said the sections that brought about the

enquiry were the 28th and 29th sections of the Municipal Corporations Aot, 1876 He read the sections named concerning the holding of such enquiries. He then read the petition praying for the merging of Parawai into the Borough, containing 95 signatures, and stated that the statutory notice of the petition had been published in the Thames Advertiser of Dec. 30,1880. Mr Brassey objected to this going into evidence, as it did not set forth the boundaries of the Parawai district as set out in the Gazette. : . .

Mr Tyler said that this was a matter the Government had to do with, they

having inserted the notice. The Commissioner said he would make a note of the objection, and forward it to the Government with his report. Mr Tyler continued, and asked the Commissioner to take a note of the following :—The counter petition had not been presented within twocalendar months of the presentation of the petition. Mr Brassey read a letter from the Under Secretary stating tfiat though the counter petition had arrived a day late, the Government could not ignore the fact that a large section of the ratepayers of Parawai were opposed to the annexation. Mr Tyler read a telegram from Government stating that the counter petition had not Been received by the Ist of March, and then proceeded to read the counter petition, showing the discrepancy in the number of the ratepayers. He also read a copy of Mr Dean and others' letter, containing the allegations against the counter petition. He would prove that one of the signatures was false, and that many had signed who were not entitled to do so, not being ratepayers. He contended the Valuation 801 lin force when the petition was presented should be the Valuation Roll of the Parawai District. He showed that 96 had signed one petition and 95 the other, whereas there were only 139 ratepayers altogether. He said that probably some of those signing had done so as ratepayers residing in the Parawai District, and not as ratepayers of the Parawai Highway District, j Mr Brassey asked the Commissioner to take the following objection :—There was absolutely no Parawai Highway District, inasmuch as no rate had been levied since 1879, and no person consequently qualified to elect a Board. I

The Commissioner said that a valuation list had been prepared, for he himself, as Judge of the Assessment Court, had ordered one to be prepared. The objection was of no use, that all having been repealed by the Rating Act. Mr Brassey further submitted that the roll was not correct.

The Commissioner: " I am sorry to hear that, as I shall be responsible for the consequences." He also said that ratepayers on the County 801 l resident in Parawai would be entitled to sign the petitions as being affected by the in< corporation of Parawai in the Borough. Mr Tyler said if that was His Worship's ruling it would be necessary to have the County Soil produced. Mr Brassey said that the County Clerk would have no objection to produce it. Mr Tyler requested Mr Carpenter to produce the Valuation Roll of the Parawai District for 1880 81 This being produced and put in evidence, Mr Tyler read a number of names which appeared on counter petition, but which did not appear on the Parawai Valuation Roll, and showed likewise that 19 names did not appear on either roll, and that 33 appeared on the Parawai Roll but not on the County Roll. He objected to two persons being allowed to represent one property, and was having a list of such persons prepared, which would be put in shortly. He then went on to submit that the allegations in the counter petition were untrue. W. Carpenter was set down as possessing property valued at £28, whereas in the Valuation Roll of Parawai it was set down at £15. He quoted other exaggerations, but the Commissioner said that brought them to the question which roll should be used. He noticed the higher valuation was sustained on the roll of the Riding, though what Mr Tyler stated was correct with respect to the Parawai Roll. . Mr Tyler then went on to submit that the 19 persons whose names appeared on neither roll were guilty of making misstatements, both with reference to the valuation of their supposed properties and in stating that they were ratepayer? of Parawai. The third allegation concerning the number of ratepayers was wrong. Seventy or more of the signatures were not verified as presoribed by the Act, viz., having been attested to by John Peat who was not a resident of the district. John Peat, sworn, examined by Mr Tyler, deposed—l reside on Block 27, and nave been residing there for eight years. Never resided at Parawai. i By Mr Brassey : I have a house and allotment at Parawai, and resided in it two nights. It is built of titree and | raupo. Block 27 is my place of residence. Mr Tyler then submitted that all the signatures attested by Mr Peat were informal. He likewise submitted that section 3of the Amendment Act had not been complied with, a complete notice of the petition had not been lodged with the Town Clerk of the Borough of Thames. A notice had been served, but it .did not contain all the information proscribed by the Act. He was informed that the signature of R. Batten was a forgery. The Commissioner said he believed that the informality would be fatal to the 78 namei attested by Mr Peat. Robert Batten was called, and deposed that he signed the petition. The signature on the petition produced was his. Mr Tyler then withdrew his first allegation that some of the names were false. He summarised the various points

adduced, showing that 33 names did not appear on the Parawai Eoll, 22 were not ou the County Roll, and 19 on no roll at allMr Brassey submitted that the fact ot Peat having resided at Parawai two mgbta constituted him a "resident ai pre« scribed by the Act. The Court then adjourned.