RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3922, 25 July 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., K.M.) W. DEEBLE T. W. S. GKEENVILIE. This was a plaint tbat defendant being a member of the Thames County Council, knowingly voted upon a motion before the Council on the 6th inst. in which he was personally interested, thereby contravening Section 73 of the Counties Act, 1876. Mr Brassey appeared for the defendant (who pleaded not guilty), and Mr Miller for the plaintiff. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Miller having stated the case, E. W. Hollis, sworn, deposed—l am Clerk and Treasurer of. the Thames County Council. I take the minutes of the procet dings of the meetings. I know the defendant, Mr W. S. Greenville, who for about two and a half years has teen a member of the County Council. At the last ordinary meeting of the Council, held on the 6th July, Mr Greenville was indebted to the County for £68 10s for water supplied for motive power to Hape Creek battery. A special report of the Finance Committee was presented at that meeting, the first paragraph of which had reference to Mr Greenville's account. A. proposition was made that the report be adopted, as also an amendment I by Mr Deeble that that portion having I reference to Mr Greenville's account be struck out, Mr Greenville wa3 present at the meeting, and some discussion eusucd on Mr Deeble's amendment.' Eventually the amendment, ,was put to the meeting, Mr Greenville voting against it. On a division the amendment was lost and the report was adopted. The voting was taken by shew of hands. On the amendment being declared lost, Cr Deeble called the attention of t 1 c Council to the' fact that Cr Greenville had voted on a subject in which he was interested. Mr Greenville then said that he had voted inadvertently, and requested to be allowed to withdraw his vote, which the (Chairman on behalf of the Council agreed to. The portion of the report having reference to Mr Greenville's account was carried out on the following day. The amendment was not again put to the meeting after Mr Greenville had withdrawn his vote. While the discussion on Cr Deeble's amendment was proceeding, Mr Greenville remained in the Council room. It was a regular ordinary monthly meeting of the Council, a quorum bein? present. The County Chairman occupied the chair. , By Mr Brassey—The amendment was not seconded by anyone. It is at the discretion of the Chairman to put an amendment without its being seconded. No other case of a similar nature has occurred since I have been County Clerk. The plaintiff and defendant are not on very amicable terms. Mr Greenville made application for his vote to be withdrawn on Mr Deeble oalling the Council's attention to it. The motion would have been carried without Cr Greenville voting at all. William Deeble, examined by Mr Miller, deposed—l am the prosecutor in this case, and a member of the Thames County Counoil. I am of opinion tbat the e»ideuee given by Mr Hollis is a true and fcuifeut statement of the Couucil

meeting as affecting Mr Greenville's account. No one could possibly hare misunderstood the meaning of the amendment. By Mr Brassey—By taking these proceedings I merely want the law to take its course. At the meeting I said that I intended to take these proceedings. I have not voted in any matter bsfore tha Council in which I was interested pecuniarily. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Brassey then ; spoke at some length, arguing that no case had been made out, and then called W. S. Greenville, who deposed—l am the defendant in this cased, and recollect the occasion on which I voted. I was not aware of the consequences of so I voting. I never read the Counties Act [ until after the 6th inst. My vote was withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the Council. My reason for voting was that the other paragraphs of the report might be carried. By Mr Miller —I heard Cr Deeble's amendment put to the meeting by the Chairman, and was under the impression that it was carried, because Cr JJe.eble's amendments usually are carried. I swear positively I did not vote on Cr Deeble's amendment. The adoption of the report was put to the vote. I thought I heard the Chairman declare Cr Deeble's amendment to be carried. The adoption of Reports is usually put to the vote. I did uot ask whether clause 1 had been struck out, although I was interested in it. I have been a Councillor nearly ttiree years and have never read the Counties Act. A. Brodie, sworn, deposed—l am Chairman of the Thames County Council. I recollect the Council meeting on the 6th inst. What took place at that time has been fairly stated by both Mr Hollis and Cr Deeble. Each Councillor openly stated the manner in which he intended voting. I do not think Cr Greenville could have any doubt as to what he was voting for. Both Crs Deeble and Greenville were both a little excited. The shew of hands was taken, Cr Greenville voting. By Mr Miller -Only one proposition was before the meeting—the adoption of the report—and that was made quite clear by me on putting it to the meeting. Mr Greenville voted for the adoption of the report. His Worship, in giving judgment, said that there could be no doubt that defendant knowingly voted upon the subject, but that he was in ignorance of the penalty to which he rendered himself liable. He thought, therefore, a nominal penalty would meet the case. Defendant would be fined £1, and costs £110s. Court adjourned.