ROAD BOARDS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXV, Issue 7865, 21 May 1886, Page 3

ROAD BOARDS.

HALSWELL ELECTION. Court of Enquibt. The enquiry into the validity of the late Eoad Board election for the Hals well district was resumed at 3 p.m. yesterday, in the Provincial Council Chambers, before Mr John Ollivier, E.M. Mr Loughrey appeared for the petitioning ratepayers, and Mr Martin for the Eetuming-Officer. The adjournment had been granted at the request of Mr Martin, who said he was tiken by surprise at the constitution of the Board being attacked. Mr Martin now submitted that the notice •f the election given by the BetumingOfficer was sufficient. (The notification had been ou April 3, and the election on May 3.) Section 49 of “The Eoad Boards Act, 1882,” provided that at least twenty-one days’ notice should be given; but Mr Martin argued on the authority of cases quoted that the legal rule of practice was, that there should bo one day inclusive and one day exclusive, between the date of the notice and the act which was the subjecl of the notice. The words “at least’ did not alter this rule, which applied in all cases unless the Act expressly stipulated for “clear ” days, which was not the case here. Cases cited: The Queen v. the Justices of Shropshire, 8 A. and E., 173; the Queen v. the Justices of the West Eiding of Yorkshire, 4 B. and A., 685; the Queen y. Goodenough, 2 A. and E., 463. The rule had to bo decided by the circumstances ot any case, as was shown by Lester v. Garland, 15 Yesey, 248, and in this case a day more or less was not essential. The order made by the Selwyn County Council, altering the boundaries of the Eoad District, was bad, because the date from which the alteration was to take place was not specified in the order, as required by section 9 of the Eoad Boards Act. Therefore the order made by the Eoad Board in 1883

before the boundaries were altered; bringing Section 49 of the Eoad Boards Act into force, was good, and inasmuch as the new Board had not revoked this order, it still remained in force. Mr Loughrey replied, relying on the authorities he had previously quoted to show that the notice had not been sufficient. His Worship did not think that portion of the Act requiring notice to be given at least 21 days prior to tne election, had been complied • with. He held that the notice had not been sufficient, and the election would be declared void. Mr Loughrey applied for costs. Mr Martin submitted tbat as the mistake had been made hand fide by the Ee-turning-Officer in construing an Act, costs should not be allowed. His Worship did not think it was a case in which the Eeturning-Offleer should be visited with costs. The enquiry then terminated.