THE NEWCASTLE RUN.

Waikato Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1638, 4 January 1883, Page 2

THE NEWCASTLE RUN.

TO TJIE EDITOR. Sir,:— Since' tWcase' Fitzgerald h\ "Shepherd was being heard in theR.M. jConrt, Hamilton, for unlawfully impounding a cow, a brief^ep6rf whibir Appeared ill' a late issue of your pape V,' on the l4aaing points of the case;/s^me"Tcoiisidera;ble excitemeut has been manifesting itself in the minds of the 1 fatejiayefs, as they ' learn from.time<to time particulars of. the cause of bringing about this case. With increasing anxiety people have been discussing the matter and tiie result that is likely to follow, that at leaftt feelings of temperj which -have^been-bubbling jip to boiling 1 heat, -have at' last burst— forth into general expressions of -• anger against the board the middle ( tl)at, body, is likely to bring the ' ratepayeVs J mio x , through the extraordinary manlier* the run was leased, and for allowing the ranger ,to, commit abuse, that ; has caused so much annoyance, trouble and expense to many, that nothing like it is known 3 to have occuri'ed, in the district before. The above dissatisfaction hasTiif noway •' allayed by the fact that, hdtwith'atanding what has been done and said, members of the board coolly said they have a rights to the moral and other support of rate- < payers as a body,' and that the latter should rally round , the, tn at any time their administration might be impeached, or called in question by a single ratepayer. This claim is in itself nothing short of being a piece cold effrontery, and shows that some members of the board have a misty idea of what perhaps might ' be here called local political niorality. The board should be, reminded that when discharging their duty they have a right to consider the interest of one ratepayer as well as that of many. They have no more right to expect the ratepayers as a body to support them, when through their mistakes, or bad.adiniuistraT tion a pecuniary loss-is, caused to a single ratepayer, than that ratepayer would the support of the former if the case were reversed. At the annual meeting iof ratepayers the question of the cattle run was discussed, and a- resolution carried, directing the incoming board to appoint a ranger to collect cattle fees from ratepayers who wished to run cattle in the district, and to keep cattle belonging to non-ratepayers out of the district. Instead of the board acting on these lines, and taking steps to do the thing in a lawful manner, they put an advertisement in the paper calling for tenders to lease the run for a year, with the right, of collecting depasturing fees. In due course another advertisement appeared, notifying that Mr Shepherd's (tender was accepted, and that he was appointed ranger for the district. That the run' was really leased to Mr Shepherd by accepting iiis tender is> beyond question, and done in such a loose and unbusinesslike manner that it would appear Mr Shepherd considered he could do with the district as lie pleased from the fact that he had it leased, and was justified in registering cattle belonging to people in other highway districts, and taking depasturing fees for same with as little concern as from settlers in the district. So it will be seen that the board made no provision whatever to keep a check on the ranger by which people in the district who registered cattle, and willing to pay, would be protected. When a previous board appointed a ranger to collect cattle fees he was furnished with the particulars of his duties in writing, and then had "to make an affidavit before a justice of the peace, ' that he would adhere strictly to those rules, and do justice. On the whole this plan seemed to give satisfaction. The present board, whether from a belief in the , ranger's superior capacity for his duty, or feeling delicacy to suggest anything that might ruffle his moral dignity, have thought lit to omit those formalities. Another thing in connection witli the subject may be worth noting : That at the last annual meeting, which was certainly the most orderly, and free from fault-finding for a number of years, the present poundkeeper (Mr Little) made a statement, and complained witli a tone ot an injured person that the ranger for the past year ' impounded no cattle off the '• run." The complaint was causing a little surprise, when some friends with sentiments of supressed partiality whispered that the poundkeeper was not influenced by any selfish object to make the complaint, but in fact it was more through philanthropy, as it was well known he supplied all impounded cattle with fodder gratis, or I should say, free of cost to the " im pounder." A most ingenious way, was it not, of pulling a friend out of a difficulty? J3ut subsequent events cleaily show on what excellent terms the present ranger and poundkeeper now stand, and it will be all very well if the ratepayers do not have to pay the piper for what might ;appear,an unholy alliance. When the case was being heard, council for the plaintiff argued and showed that the board had no poM'er to lease Crown lauds, therefore, the ranger could not impound cattle off same. And if the board neglected to have the depasturing of cattle done in a lawful way, the ranger could not demand depasturing fees. The defence on this point was then abandoned, but took shelter under the 37th clause of the Highways Act, which says — what 'i " It shall be lawful for the board of any district, by some person authorised in that behalf by the board,' to impound ' any cattle that may be found straying on any road within the boundaries of such district." But this clause gives no power to the board nor to the ranger to demand depasturing fees, because, if the board or ranger receive fees for the right of persons depasturing cattle on roads, they would then be bound to protect such persons from all loss and damage that might follow under the 101 st clause of the Public Works Act. Now, the most important question to be considered is, did the board lawfully appoint Shepherd to impound cattle off the roads, because other clauses in the Ilighways Act say that the board must do certain things before the authority can be given. The 36th clause says that the board shall cause a minute -book to be kept, in which shall be entered minutes of all orders and proceedings of the board, same to be read over at next meeting of board, and must be confirmed and signed by the chairman. This • wag not done in the alleged appointment' of , Shepherd. Therefore, as the board did •not comply with this necessary clause in the act, his appointment must be null and void in the sight of the law, and without lawful authority to impound cattle off roads unfenced om .both* aid£s? Though it may most extraordinary, still it true, that the chairman, when giving his evidence, swore that the/ board ( gave Shepherd authority to impound cattle off roads, though when cross-examined could not recollect when, nor at'what meeting, nor what' members were present, nor who proposed and secqnded , the resolution at the, meeting when the alleged authority was given, while another merii- ■ ber swore that no such authority waa given at any meeting of the board, and that the only time they deliberated, on that question "was when' the. board* dTccep--ted Shepherd's tender for the lease of the run, and why iie thought 'Shepherd had authority to impound was., that at t the time "the board accepted his tender,' he beUeved'tkefyfha'd'.power tojease >Crow» lands. In the face of all this confusion, I cannot see, hpw^theboard^ pan hope tp regain the confidence ' of ady l nuinbfflr of ratepayers except by adopting tfne 6i two alternatives. „ The first jp to r< dism.iss the ranger without any further ceremony, and return the depasturing fees to all those from whom they may nave beenfaTlawfully obtained ;or resign in a boay, and when their successors 4 ) take i office, I think*'* it f ' may ';be'^BaBonably! expected tliat' they will undertake tihe'r6quired reforms. — I am, &c. Batki»ay£R. > . fWtei January' lst.