SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1177, 12 July 1911, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

A BOARD'S BORROWING POWERS. DECISION OF JUDGE SIM. \tX e f°v Of - gr > eat 'mPTtanco to the gSKSSKS of "thef? W r« T unt} ' and tho rents « enc lesenes, and, proposed to outer contributing, bodies, the deficient of in come necessary to pay interest and sinking fund On going mto the title, tho .Public I rustee-raised certain questions, and the hoard asked that they be dealt with by ™i,t wM U l expen - se - The f l««tions related to the borrowing powers of the hoard, and how these were affected by S wexef neral leSislatiOn> The «™- Whether the general borrowing powers Th nfe n ed ?, the Vrd by IL 7' a « n,i Charitable Institutions Act 909, are controlled, affated or abndged by,the provisions of The Auckland Hospital Acts Amendment Act, 1905, as amended by l»vr ( ™ H ? ibil Acts Amei"ilent' ' ' ° 'if SO, io what ex - Whether the powers of borrowing under rent! ? Mn ex "cisecl ■ concur- ■ Whether it is lawful for the defendant board to.enter into a covenant that a contribution will be levied annuallv under the provisions of Section 41 of The Hospitals and Charilable-In-stitutions Act, 1903, for the sum required in order to make up the full amount of interest and sinking fund for each ; year in.respect of the proposed loan of .£70,000? "«-Pp

Counsel at the hearing were: Mr. J. W J acdonald for the Public Trustee; Mr J !; ' Chapman, K.C., and Mr. E. ,T. Fitzgibnon for the defendant;' Mr. J W Salniond, Solicitor-General, in person.' fw*i. °" r, A his i l "lement, noted that the general Act of l!) 09 did not repeal the local Acts of 1903 and 1907, but the Act of 1909 abolished the board that, had been clothed with the powers mentioned in the.Acts of 1905 and 1907 It . was unnecessary, therefore, to repeal these Acts. So far as.'.these, powers'were concerned, the Acts ceased to. have any' operation when tho old board went'out of existence. ' The Legislature, by merely preserving the continuity of existence of the eld andaiew boards, did not indicate necessarily, an intention of clothing the now board with any of the .special powers of. the. old board. ... "The. answer; therefore," continued his Honour, "to the first and second questions submitted is that the only. powers of borrowing-.vested in the .defendant board are those conferred by .the Act of l!)09,-and that these are not controlled nr ' affected - in ' any war by Ihe Acts of lflOo and 1907. ..." ■ . • "With regard to the third question submitted, it seems clear that it would be tho duty of the defendant bonrd. in making up the estimate under Section H of the Act of 1909, to take into consideration the sum required to bo paid for interest and sinkin? fund in respect of the loan. 7t would bo lawful, therefore, for the hoard- to enter into covenant such as that proposed. Such a covenant would amount only'to an undertaking by the bonrd to perform tho duty already imposed unon it by the statute. "It was agreed that the.board should pay the costs of the summons. I make an order, therefore, that the board-nay the costs of.the plaintiff and th» Solici-tor-Ooueral. the amount to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar."