UNABLE TO HOLD OFFICE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 270, 10 August 1922, Page 8

UNABLE TO HOLD OFFICE

» DISQUALIFICATION OF A I MAYOR NO SUGGESTION OF MORAL TURPITUDE 8Y TELEGKABK-PRESK ASSOCIATION To Kulti, August 9. Reserved decisioi in an important case was delivered by Mr. I’. flatts, S.M., to-day. It concerned a charge against Herbert Hine, Mayor, on ten counts under section 40, clause 4, of the Alunicipal Corporations. Act. 1920, “that ho did act ns Mayor whilst incapacitated from holding office by reason of being concerned or interested in a contract with the council to a value of £37 ss. 2d., which amount was owing to him when he took office.” The facts were t|iat Hine had resigned his position of borough solici tor before he was elected Mayor in April. 1921. When elected, the sum of £37 ss. 2d. .was owing to him for services as solicitor. This sum was paid after he took office. The /Audit Department, which instituted the charges, contended that the fact that the sum was owing to defendant when he took office as Mayor made him concerned or interested in a contract with the council within the meaning of the Act. • After lengthy consideration of legal’ authorities, the Magistrate held that defendant, at the time of his eleotion, was 'concerned or interested in a contract under which he had previously rendered his professional services. Defendant was therefore incapable of being elected or being Mayor under section 41 of the Act. The neualty for acting as Mayor whilst incapacitated was £5O for each offence. At the hearing counsel for the prosecution had stated tliat the Audit Office did not suggest any moral turpitude on defendant’s part, and said the AuditorGeneral had instituted proceedings because he was compelled by the Act. "The defendant,” said His Worship, “is a man of acknowledged integrity who, at considerable sacrifice of personal interests, undertook public duty as Mayor of Te Kuiti at a critical time in the history of the borough, but unfortunately for the borough was incapable of being elected owing to the provision of the Municipal Corporations Act, as to which there are conflicting authoritative decisions. It will therefore be sufficient if defendant is merely convicted and ordered to pay the costs of the Court (95.), and solicitors' fee in each case.”