MILTON.

Bruce Herald, Volume XII, Issue XII, 14 November 1879, Page 3

MILTON.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq,, R.M). Tuesday, November 11. Se DONALD REID, ex parte A. W. OBART. Information filed in the nature of a quo warranto calling upon Mr Reid to. show cauje why he should not be ousted from office as a Councillor for the Borough of Mdton, oh the grounds as set forth in summons, as follows :— l. On the 25th day of October, 1877, the town of Milton was duly proclaimed a Borough under "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1976," as the Borough of Milton. 2. On the 12th day of September, 1878, Donald Keid, of Milton aforesaid, gentleman, was elected one of the Councillors of the said Borough, and he shortly afterwards made the declaration required by the said Act, aad took his seat as such Councillor. 3. On the 12th day of September, 1879, the Council of the said Borough invited tenders from the proprietors of newspapers published in Miiton for the insertion of the advertisements required to be published by the Borough. 4. On the 24th day of September, 1879, certain tenders had been received by the Council of the said Borough, and in particular one from the proprietors of a newspaper called the Bruce Hbraid, for the iusertion of such advertisements, aud the said Donald Reid toek part in the discussion of the said matter, and the said tender of the said newspaper was accepted, and tho advertisements from time to time published by the Council now appear in the Baid news paper. 5. The Council have coutracted to pay the proprietors of the said newspaper certaiu remuneration and reward for the insertion < f the said advertisements. 6, The said Donald Reid is one of the proprietors of the said newspaper. These proceedings were taken under section 97 of the " Municipal Corporations Act, 1876." Mr Taylor appeared for Mr Keid. The relator, Mr Grant, appeared in person. His Worship remarked that this was the first proceeding of the kind in this Court. Mr Grant could now either show reasons why Mr Reid should be ousted, or at once call his witnesses. Mr Taylor thought that the proper course of practice to adopt would perhaps be the same as in the Supreme Court, in moving for a rule nisi for a similar object. Mr Grant produced a telegram aud stated that his principal witness (the Registrar of the Supreme Court), was not aMe to attend, though he bad been subpceaaed for the purpose of producing a certain document, viz, a deed of partnership, necessary to establish the facts upon which the present information had been laid. Mr Taylor— What deed of partnership ? Mr Grant— A deed of partnership relating to the Bruce Herald newspaper ; I saw it when I searched t*»e records of the Supreme Court and it states that Measrs Donald Reid, Francis Grant, and John Grant are partners. His Worship did not understand why a deed of partnership should be filed. Did Mr Grant mean an affidavit of registration under the " .Newspaper Act, 1868?" The iuforinant thought it might be what was meant. Mr Taylor — I am placed at a disadvantage in this matter, when Mr Grant does not appear to know the difference between a deed of partnership and an affidavit of registration. Mr Taylor next inquired if the expenses of witness had been scut to him, and was replied to iv the affirmative. Mr Taylor submitted that there was no evidence before the Court to that effect. Informant replied thai he could state on oath that the expenses had been paid, namely ISa 6d. Mr Taylor - When was the money sent ? Informant — On Saturday morning, the Bth instant. M r Taylor here remarked that the service was apparently made on tbe 7th, whereas the money had not been sent till' the Sth, and no date of service of subpoena is mentioned in affidavit. He thought the whole of the proceedings were very informal. i His Worship said it would be better not to let the case fall through on account of any informality, as it could be brought on again. After aome further argument between the learned counsel and the Bench, Mr Taylor proceeded to say that Mr ft rant had put the law in motioD, aud had not secured " the attendance of the Registrar. If he came there as his own lawyer hs must put up with the eonsecjueuces of his ignorance. It was incumbent ou Mr Grant to have seen that everything was done to allow the case to proceed. Informant here applied for an adjournment. . Mr Taylor— li an adjournment is granted, I must ask. your Worship that costs are allowed to Mr Keid ; the informant should receive no unusual indulgence. There was nothing to justify any departure from the ordinary rules of practice, and the proceedings were altogether of a most unusual character. He (Mr Taylor) might have to make aome observations on this matter hereafter, but would not at present say anything more. His Worship — Mr Grant haa cortainly made a great mistake ; however, he thought this case should not be settled on technical points, but rather on its merits. After further argument, his Worship decided to grant an adjournment, but reserved the consideration of costs. He strongly advised the informant to provide himself with a lawyer. Case adjourned till Tuesday next, the 18th instant.