AUCTIONEERS' FEES.

Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 3, 16 July 1896, Page 3

AUCTIONEERS' FEES.

At the Waipa County Council meeting on Tuesday, the judgment delivered by Capt. Jackson, 5.1V1., in the case Hamilton Borough Council v. Waipa County Council occasioned a good deal of discussion.— The Chairman, in introducing the matter, stated that after the decision he was instructed to proceed to Auckland and obtain a further legal opinion on the question . He had done so, and from the information he received he did not think it advisable to appeal. The solicitor informed him that a mistake had undoubtedly been made in the judgment, hut as it was not a point of law but simply one of fact, he did not think the Higher Court would upset the decision of the lower one. An appeal would cost £4O or £SO at least, and he was confident it was money thrown away.— Or. Finch and Kusabs endorsed this opinion.—Cr. Allen said he was certainly opposed personally to tbe appeal $ but tbo ratepayers in his district were nearly all in favour of further action being taken. Cr. Teasdale said he felt very sure on the subject as did all the ratepayers in his district, who all favoured an appeal.—— Cr. Finch said every one to whom he had spoken opposed it, and he was sti'ongly opposed to it himself.—Cr. Mandeno said he felt the affair just as much as anyone else, but there was no use allowing one’s feeling to influence him in the matter. The ratepayers he represented were anxious to appeal, hut he himself was opposed to it,—Or. Teasdale proposed that the Council should appeal, that a meeting of ratepayers should be called to decide whether they should go ou with the case, and that a cheque should he sent at once to cover expenses. —lt was the wish of the whole district that there should be an appeal. He was sure the ratepayers would be willing to take the case to Wellington if the appeal was not a success.—Cr. Allen seconded the motion. He was opposed to the motion ; but as it was the wish of the ratepayers, be would sive way. —Cr. Finch said the feeling in his district was against the appeal, and he moved an amendment that no appeal be made.—Cr. Mandeno seconded.—On bting put the voting for the amendment resulted as follows : —For : Crs. Finch, Mandeno and the Chairman. Against : Crs. Allen, Smith, Harris, Tickers, Teasd;de and Kusabs. The voting for the motion was vice versa. As the appeal h;id to be lodged by noon on the day of meeting, an urgent telegram was at once forwarded to the Council's solicitor, Mr L. O'Neill, informing him of the decision arrived at. The appointment of a day on which the meeting of ratepayers will he held was left in the hands of the chairman, but fi will most; likely take place on Tuesday next, at Ohaupo.