RULING CHALLENGED

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 71, 17 December 1937, Page 18

RULING CHALLENGED

Gas Board Member’s Position SUPREME COURT ACTION The ruling of the Auditor-General, disqualifying him from continuing to hold office ou the Petone and Lower Hutt Gas Lighting Board was challenged by Mr. E. T. E. Hogg in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday. Mr. Hogg had been informed by the Audit Office that his interest in a contract entered into by the board with Ballinger Brothers, Ltd., made it unlawful for him to continue as a member of the board until his re-election. “There is not a particle of real substance in the accusation levelled against qjy client,” said Mr. R. E. Harding, who appeared for Mr. Hogg. After hearing legal argument, Mr. Justice Ostler reserved his decision. The Crown solicitor (Mr. A. E. Currie) said th’at section 3 of the Local Authorities Act provided that no person was capable of being a member of a local authority if he was concerned or interested in a contract made by the local authority, including concern or interest as a member of a company of 20 members or fewer. It was impossible, said Mr. Currie, to distinguish the position of a shareholder owning shares in his own right from one holding as trustee for another person. Every shareholder, he submitted, must necessarily be within the disqualifying provisions of the statute. “This is purely a technical point,” added Mr. Currie, “and no suggestion is made that Mr. Hogg lias been acting otherwise tlian in the most correct and proper fashion. The suggestion merely is that he has not been circumspect on this dry point of law.” Mr. Harding said the whole proceedings reflected very little upon the person who had raised the issue, and that person was not the Audit Office. There was not a particle of substance inf the allegations made, against Mr. Hogg, who was not at all disposed to be pushed oft the board upon yvhat lie regarded as the merest pretext. Mr. Harding contended first, that the Act had no application whatever unless the member stood to gain personally by the contract, and, alternatively, that if the Act did apply to members who had uo personal advantage at stake, then it could only apply where the member had a duty to another person that conflicted with his duty to the board. It was submitted that in the present case, plaintiff having actually handed over a transfer of his shares and parted with every vestige of interest in them, was under no duty to the purchaser, or any other person, that was capable of coming into conflict with his duty to the board. His Honour said he would take time to consider his decision.