GLEN EDEN TROUBLES.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 41, 18 February 1927, Page 10

GLEN EDEN TROUBLES.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. JUDGMENT RESERVED. The hearing of the ease in which •Tohn Henry Hayes, accountant, of Glen Eden, claimed the sum of £30 10/3 frotn Abraham Joseph Routlev, storekeeper, of Glen Eden, concluded in the Auckland Court yesterday. Judgment was reserved. The case was stated to be the origin of recent trouble amongst members of the Glen Eden Town Board. 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 inenjtioned 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 1"~S, thus making the total of £30 10/3. Mr. E. H. Xorthcroft appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. L. G. West for defendant. Addressing the Court for the defence, Mr. West said the penalty provided under the Act was a line not exceeding £00, and also the loss of seat. This was very heavy, and it was necessary that complete proof of guilt ouglit to be submitted before such a penalty could be imposed. He submitted there was no evidence of interest on the part of the defendant in the transactions referred to. The prosecution had not met the provisions of the Town Boards Act by proving that there was any receipt of money by defendant. The fact that the money was paid did not prove that it was paid to defendant; it might have been paid to an agent. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the offence was knowingly offending against the law, and lie submitted that the prosecution had to go much further than they had done in order to prove that defendant was wilfully and knowingly breaking the law. In reply, Mr. Xorthcroft said the evidence showed clearly that Mr. Koutley, and nobody else, was responsible for the transaction and for the subterfuge by which the bill was sent in by Robertson. Judgment was reserved. Mr. Xorthcroft remarked that a lot of trouble had been caused by the case, and it was hardly likely to be ended until the case finished. He, therefore, respectfully suggested that an early decision should be given. Mr. Cutten: I will bear that point in mind.