PARTY FEUD.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 150, 26 June 1924, Page 8

PARTY FEUD.

. VENDETTA ALLEGED. MAXGAAVARA RIVER BOARD CASK. IBy Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON", this day. '"This is a gross abuse of our criminal law." declared Mr. 11. 11. Ostler, in addressing Mr. 11. A. Young. S.M-. at Hamilton yesterday, on behalf of the four members of the Mangawara River Hoard. .Messrs. .lames Law. E. C. l'ilkitigtoii, Kran.-is Koberl Catley. and l-'rank Herbert, who were charged, at ;iip instance of other members of the board, with abusing their positions vii the board by voting on a matter which bore for them a direct financial interest. The position was complicated by a crossaction by the four defendants named, charging their accusers, Messrs. Lionel Hoy \V. Keid. C. C. Green. W. S. Carter, an.l W. J). Thompson, with a similar offen-.v. The c.se out of ihe recent Commission, which sat to consider the board's affairs, but which proved abortive, owing to the men (including I he four meni!>ors in question), who were responsible for the Commission lieing set up. refusing to appear. The Commission awarded Hie board costs totalling ,-CI.W against the petitioners. The four members who signed ihe petition were partly responsible for these costs, and tin- allegation was tlint they deliberately used their positions on the boanl to avoid this payment. Mr. Ostler contended that his clients hud been prosecuted by tlie other members simply io serve their own ends. and to unseat them, so that they (the prosecutors) might assume full control of the board's affairs. It was simply a vendetta actuated 'by spite. Summarising the evidence. Mr. Ostler maintained that it had been shown beyond doubt that the meeting in question was adjourned to allow certain of the members, not conversant with the workings of the board, an opportunity of becoming more cognisant of affairs. Catley. in proposing the adjournment of ihe discussion on the Supreme Court action, did so with no wrongful inlent. "It was shameful," continued counsel, "that these other four should be allowed to use the criminal law of the country for their own party ends. Counsel contended that none of the eight members had committed an offence, and alternatively, if the first four had, the second four also had done so. -Mr. E. H. Northcroft. for the other side, drew what he considered a very distinctive difference between his and Mr. Ostler's clients. The meeting was adjourned upon the discussion of a letter from Bell and Johnston, solicitors, relating to costs in favour of the board. The four members he was prosecuting had a vital interest in having the order quashed, as any one of them was liable to go home and find the bailiff in charge of his cows in satisfaction of the order for costs made against him. His clients, however, had no more personal interest in the matter than any o.ther ratepayers had. The motion put through by Pilkington and Co. was a deliberate and considered attempt to deprive- the board of its rights. Decision was reserved.