The Daily Times THE OLDEST MANAWATU JOURNAL ESTABLISHED 1875, SATURDAY, DEC. 6, 1884.

Manawatu Times, Volume X, Issue 1365, 6 December 1884, Page 2

The Daily Times THE OLDEST MANA WA TU JOURNAL ESTABLISHED 1875, SATURDAY, DEC. 6, 1884.

A cask of considerable interest to members" of Borough Councils was decided at Wanganui yesierday by Mr Ward, K.M. One Timms, hitherto unknown to fame or notoriety, sued Mr Spurdle, the Mayor-elect, for £100 under sections 61 and 63 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876. The first mentioned clause p'.ovides,Vn£er alia, that a person shall be incapable of baing a councillor who is concerned or participates m any contract with or work to be done for the Council, and clause 63 provides that any person infringing this is liable to a penalty of £50 for every such offence, which may be reoovered by any person, with costs of suit, m any Court of competent jurisdiction. The evidence given showed that Mr Spnrdle, while a member of the Council, did certain work at the Hospital, which is managed by a separate Board and the accounts of which are kept separate from those of the Borough. The accounts are, however, passed by the Council, and Mr Spurdle's account for work done at the Hospital, amounting to £20 $1, came before that body ou 21at

October, and was passed for payment. Heuce the tears of Timms. Mr Fitzherbert for the plaintiff argued that the Hospital Committee was not a legal body. The Borongh Council was the body appointed to conduct the business of the Hospital, and could not. delegate the powers | of their trust. And of course they would Veep their accounts separate, but it was not intended that the bodies should be separate bodies. It was shown that the acs counts were sent to the Borough Council, passed by them, and paid by them. He would submit chat it was proved that durieg the time the work was m progress Mr Spurdte had sat and voted, and was there disqualified and liable to penalties. — Mr Barnieoat, for the defence (we quote from tho Herald's report) said that the work was done for the body that managed the Hospital, whether that body had a legal existence or not. It was idle to contend that the Borough Council had not power to delegate their powers as trust3es, they had dona so and no harm had' resulted. The Council had handed the management to a committee consisting of members of various local bodies, and when the committee ob» jected to the restriction as to spend' ing money which the Council wished to impose on them, the Council res~ cinded ifc. The question was with whom the contract was made, and not with whom it ousfht to have been made. It was proved too that the payment m quesfcioi hsri Hospital fund contribnted by" the local bodies, and the Government, and could not be said to be Borough Council iuonieß. He also contended that the work was ; done for the managing body of the Hospital, and that being so the information couldnot be brought under the Municipal Corporations Act. Under this Act the endowments were given to the Corporations as trastees for the Hospitals, and were given certain powers which Bhowed that as trustees they were not bouud by the Municipal Act. He contended that section 61 referred only td work done for the Council under that Act and not for the Hospital Commit', tee. The last clause of the Wan* ganni Hospital Act said that the work of the Hospital should be done m the same manner as the work of the Council — a clause which he argued would cot have' been needed had it been m the least degre3 understood that the work of the hospital formed part of the ordinary duties of the Borough Council. He concluded by quoting from the Law Court reports showing a similar case had been considered m England, and dismissed. He would aik his Worship to find that the work was done for the Hospital Committee, ! and done m the belief that the Hos--1 pital Committee was an entirely distinct body." Mr Spurdle had taken the contract m good faith. He also objected as a matter of form i that the EM. Corrt had no juris* diction, the Act only giving power to I sue for debt or a wrong inflicted, and neither terra applied to this cas». The objection was overrnled, | and ultimately his Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, ; with costs 46a aud one witness 12s 6d, counsel's fee being disallowed. The foregoing ; -will --probably— oauao councillors generally f.o be a little more careful m studying the Act under which they work. The question of the good faith of Mr Spardle is outside the real one at issue, and movever, he, as a Borough Council* lor, and with an eye to the Mayoralty should have been perfectly conversant with the Act. The provision under which he was fined is a wise one, aud prevents a vast amount of jobbery which would otherwise be perpetrated. If the case has beeu ccrrectly reported, it appears to us that the E,M. has given, judgment for exactly double the penalty provided. The evidence only discloses one offence, and the Act provides a penalty of £50 for this, whereas, it would appear that Timms claimed £100 and got it. One result of the decision would appear to be that Wanganui will have to proceed afres/i to the election of a mayor. Besides the pecuniary penalty consequent on conviction, Clause 61 of the Act declares that' any person concerned as above shall be incapable of being, or of being elected to be a councillor. Clause 51 also makes the disqualifications of councillors apply to mayors, and" therefore it ' would appear that Cr Spurdle is not now the Mayor elect of Wanganui. Mr Spurdle is no doubt deserving of sympathy. He is, we believe, one would not act otherwise than m good faith, and he has also done no more than many another councillor m various paits of the colony. We have no doubt public sympathy will take a substantial form. Individuals such as Timms have their uses m the m the community, no doubt, but we may Barely assume that the citizebs of Wanganui will never raise- a statue ia his honor.