GLEN EDEN'S TROUBLES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1927, Page 10

GLEN EDEN'S TROUBLES.

TOWN BOARD RIVALRY.

CAUSE OF THE TROUBLE.

AUCKLAND POLICE COURT SEQUEL.

What was described by counsel as the real reason for the trouble which has taken place at recent meetings of the Glen Eden Town Board was entered into to-day before Mr. E. C. Cutten. SAI., in the Auckland Court, when John Henry Hayes, accountant, of Glen Eden, claimed the sum of '£30 10/3 from Abraham Joseph Routley, storekeeper, of Glen Eden. The grounds for the action were that defendant, being a member of the Glen Eden Town Board, did knowingly vote upon a matter before the said board in which he had an interest, namely, the payment of goods supplied by him to the board. There were three items mentioned in the claim—a bottle of methylated spirits (1/3), cement and sand (6/9), and a shovel handle (2/3). Plaintiff claimed these sums, with the addition in each case of £10, the statutory penalty under the Public Contracts and Local Bodies Contractors Acts of 190S, thus making the total of £30 10/3. Mr. E. H. Northcroft appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. L. G. West for defendant. Mr. Northcroft said the Glen Eden Town Board recently had an election, and since then had not been a happy family. Both parties were members o: the board, Mr. Hayes having been a member priof to the last election, and Mr. Routley having been elected on that occasion. 'T want to treat Mr. Routley with perfect fairness," said Mr. Northcroft, "and there is no doubt that he had, quite legally, supplied goods to the board before his election. However, at j a recent meeting he learned that it was! not legal for him to receive payment, as ! he was a member of the board. The amount was trivial. There were three small sums, totalling 10/3. and one might hare expected that he would have abandoned the claim. If he had done so he would not only have been acting in a perfectly legal manner, but it would have been a creditable action and he would have been entitled to a certain amount of sympathy."

"A Descent to Subterfuge." *'Tt was at that point, however, that Mr. Routley descended to subterfuge. He was not prepared to serve the public and at the same time to lose his 10/3. He went to another storekeeper, a Mr. Robertson, who also carried on business at Glen Eden, and induced him to submit an account for the goods which he (Mr. Routley) had supplied. Defendant, it was alleged, explained that this had to be done because he was a member of the board. The account was rendered, payment was proposed by a Mr. Rosier, and defendant himself seconded the motion." The matter came to the notice ef Mr. Hayes, and he (Mr. Northcroft) submitted that he would have been lacking in his duty if he had failed to bring it forward. The case, if upheld, would provide a final declaration of the loss of defendant's seat on the board, which, counsel contended, must follow automaticallv.

The. first witness, James Robertson, the storekeeper referred to, gave evidence in' support of Mr. Xorthcroft's statement that Routley induced him to render the account to the board.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wesf, witness said it was agreed that he should receive 10 per cent of the money to be paid. Some amusement lras caused tHffen the name of Mr. West, a member of the board, was mentioned. "We have heard that name before," said defending counsel, "and we have seen a good deal of it in the papers. I do hope they don't think it is me." (Laughter).

Town Board Clerk's Evidence. Herbert Croucher, clerk to the board, produced the minutes of meetings which had taken place since October. On October 26 it was recorded that a resolution was proposed by Mr. West and seconded by Mr. Routley, that the "accounts as presented should be adopted. Amongst the accounts was one from Routley. The minutes showed that the motion was carried unanimously, but witness could not say definitely whether or not Mr. Routley voted..ou the motion. The minutes of a meeting on Dec-ember 20 showed that the report of the Finance Committee was adopted. Mr. Hayvoted against the motion to accept the report and accounts. All the " other members, including Routley. voted for

Cross-examined by Mr. West, wnnessaid the were all investigated by the Finance Committee before thev came before the board, and, as a rule. they were passed without question. Mr. West: On the occasion referred to. did not Hayes say he was voting against the motion '"because of some absurd standing orders t"—l think something about standing orders was mentioned. At the next meetin t . said witness. Hayes gave as one of his reasons for voting against the moi _>n that RoutTcv had traded with the board.