THE CORPORATION AND THE CITY SOLICITOR.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 84, 7 October 1881, Page 3

THE CORPORATION AND THE CITY SOLICITOR.

« At tho meeting of the City Council last night, the following memorandum from the City Solicitor was read : — 29th September, 1881. I observe in the newspapers a statement that an error was made in carrying forward an amount in one of the accounts rendered to the Council. I need scarcely say that I was not aware of the existence of this error, assuming it really to exist, until I saw the notice of it in the newspapers. If it do exist, perhaps you will be good enough to instruct the Treasurer to place the amount to my debit. With regard to my accounts rendered during the last three years, say from May, 1873, I am quite willing that they should be submitted for taxation through any solicitor whom the Council may desire to act for them in the matter, but upon the following understanding — that if the amounts received by me shall be found to have been in excess of the amount which would be allowed aa between solicitor and client, the excess be refunded by me ; if, on tho other hand, the allowances made by me be found to be in excess of the deductions made in taxation, then that excess be paid to me by the Council. lam prepared to give every facility for bring the matter before the taxing master. Wm. Thos. Locke Travers, City Solicitor. At a later period of the evening. Councillor Diver moved the following motion, standing in his name: — "That a committee be appointed to ascertain if a more satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at than that which now exists between the Corporation and the City Solicitor, with power to call for papers and persons The committee to consist of the Mayor, Councillor A. W. Brown, M Kenzie, Allen, and the mover." In moving this resolution, Councillor Diver read the letter of the City Solicitor, upon which he was appointed. In that letter, which was dated 19fch May, 1871, Mr. Travers said— When I was appointed solicitor to the Chriatchurch City Council they paid me a special letaining fee of iJ2O for each year. In return for this fee I advised the Council generally on all matters in which they required lfgal advice in the ordinary course ef tho business cf the city. For attendances in Court and preparing documents, I was paid at the usual l'lit^p, the retaining fee only covering consultations, advice generally, and occasional attendances at the Board when the assistance of a solicitor might be useful in relation to legal points in matters at the time under discussion. The oosta of leaaoß by the City Council were always, in accordance with the usual practice, paid by the lessees. The Christchuroh Council had a printed form applicable to the reserves under their control. By written document 8 chargeable to the Council, I mean contracts for works, for gas or water supply, &c , where such contracts are reqnired." Councillor I 'iver. continuing, said that he should show that at prsaent there was no sytem at all, and that the accounts had not been gone into with the care which should have been Bhown. On the 30th June. 1879, he found a ohargo of .£2O for retaining fee, and also " tlio like for the year ending Ist May, 1880, .£20," being for the next year. On the 18th June, 1881, there was a charge of .£2l (£1 too much) for the retaining fee for 1882. During tne lttsi Wo Toars .£O3O ie» 4a in*a been paid for attendances and conferring. In the Provincial Council .£4OO a year was paid to the Provincial Solicitor for all the work of the Council, and if bills were received from any other solicitor, they were always taxed. Councillor Diver expressed a strong opinion that Mr. Travera' bills for the last three years should be taxed, and in conclusion remarked that he could not understand why another solicitor should have been engaged to act with Mr. Travers in Clirnie v. the Corporation, when the plaintiff only had one solicitor. Councillor A. W. Brown seconded the resolution, which was supported by Councillors M'Kenzie and Staff >rd. Councillor Thompson intended to oppose the resolution, and moved, as an amendment, that the matter be referred to tho Public Works Committee. He declared that Councillor Diver had aoted from a spirit of antagonism to the City Solicitor,-and warmly repelled the imputation which was apparently sought to be conveyed that there was a " ring " in the Council. Cr. Newman seconded the amendment. He could not help thinking a great mountain had been made out of a very little. He had gone into the accounts, and had found no mistake which might not have arisen in any large mercantile office. It seemed st ange that Coancillor Diver, who had been in the Council four years, had not moved in the matter before if such flagrant abuses as he alleged existed. Councillors Danks and S. Brown supported the amendment. The latter remarked that he Had, unfortunately, had some experience in law, and he thought the charges very reasonable Councillor Log AN said that if the accounts were submitted to the taxing-master they would find that the Council would have to pay or J3500 more. He pointed out that in one instance one of Mr. Travers' accounts had been taxed as between party and party, and the deductions did not come to so much in proportion as those made by the Finance Committee. Further discussion took place, in the course of which the Mayor said that a one-sided committee had been nominated by Councillor Diver, and urged that the Council should let that committee investigate the matter. Councillor Diver offered to withdraw his motion in favour of the amendment, but was not allowed to do so. Eventually, on a division being taken, the amendment was carried by 8 votes to 5, the curious spectacle being witnessed of Councillor Thompson voting against his own amendment, and Councillor Diver voting against the motion proposed by himself. Councillor Allen endeavoured to get the names of Councillors Logan and Allen added to the committee, but both declined to act. Councillor Allen thereupon said that he also should decline to sit on such a one-sided committee

Recently the Police Magistrate of Temora (says the Temora Herald) had before him a member of the higher grade of the forensic art on a charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct, in the shape of William Charles Aspinall, who was described aa of 50 years of age, barrister, born in England, and a member of the Church of England. The defendant was discharged with a caution. The cocked hat (remarks a London contemporary)- *> s & practical head-dress for officers on field service has long since been condemned by every one with any sense of what is fitting. The medical officers of the army have loi.g been demanding its abolition as far as they are concerned, as they find it very cumberoome, and it does not give any ¦protection from sun or rain. The helmet is -§fr more serviceable as a head-covering, and is worn by all ranks in the German service. But our Horse Guards stand in the way, oppose the change, and offer instead useless and expensive shoulder-knots, which are of no practical use in any way, and are much dhliked by all officers. Let us keep oocked hats for levels if needs be, but why send men into tho field with such trumpery headcoverings ?