WHEW !—WHISTLE IT !

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 191, 4 September 1888, Page 2

WHEW !—WHISTLE IT !

The County Council would go to law—they would sue the Borough Council for alleged damage to a road—if it was only for the sake of establishing ths principle they felt bound to take action; and now what is the result’ Well, the ratepayers in either boundary need not expect a dividend as their share of the transaction- Before any definite action was taken we thought we had put the whole matter in a fair light, and our remarks have bean since upheld by the magistrate. Past experience, we should thought, would have taught the County Council of all local bodies, the danger of entering upon litigation, even with an almost certain victory in viewBut in tile case in question it has been proved the County Council had not a to Svftnd on—they were defeated on the facts, and the question of principle was not even approached. As a proof of the weakness. of their case one witness was called to testify as to the damage done and upon his getting into the box it transpired that he had not been on the road for two years previously, 'J’he County Solicitor stated in Court that the suit W’as a friendly one—the first one. of its kind, he believed, that had been tried in New Zealand : all they wished to do. was to have decided by a competent authority the question of law involved. Mr Kenny further, we believe, gave it to be understood tfiat the Borough Council was a consenting party to the action ; they bad indeed prefer re d that it should be taken to a Court of law. From our knowledge of the facts we can assert fchat the Borough Council gave no such cons pnt; they considered the claim unreasonable, ridiculous in fact, and merely defended the suit because it was forced upon them. The idea of the Cook County Council incurring the exnense of getting a decision on a point that had not previously been decided in New Zealand ’ If all the other local governing bodies in the colony could manage to pull through their business without going to on the point invdlvM in this ease, surely our County Council, _ a struggle to get along, could leave sue' 1 things alone? But if they feel they must do so, they shou’d take care that they have a proper case to begin with ; it does not require a knowledge of law to be assured that no Court can decide upon a question of principle when there are no facts before it to prove that such is involved in the case. The whole difficulty appears to be that the County Council have, not the funds in hand to properly maintain their roads, and in such cir cumsUnces it is very annoying that a mad that has been formed should be damaged by having more than the customary traffic upon it; but it is sheer nonsense to suppose that traffic which may be extraordinary on that road, because it is really a by.road, would in law be considered as extraordinary traffic, and were it so the result obtained by going to law is generally a most unsatisfactory one. It will take close on £2O to cover the costs of this nction—a fact which the ratepayers are not likely to relish. It also seems to have been lost sight of that many Borough ratepayers have rateable interests in the County. Execution in the case has been stayed, so that an appeal may be made if it is thought advisable. We have too much faith in the good sense of Councillors to believe that they will allow this costly nonsense to be further protracted.