THE HARBOUR BOARD CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 8121, 18 March 1887, Page 3

THE HARBOUR BOARD CASE.

Yesterday R. Beetham, Esq, R.M., gave the following decision in the cases brought against the members and Secretary of the Lyttelton Harbour Board for neglecting to have their accounts audited by the Auditor sent for the purpose by the Government:— I think there can be no question as to the fact that the Harbour Board and the Secretary to the Board, acting under its instructions, have refused to allow the Harbour Board accounts to be audited by the accountant appointed by the Audit Office. Several point* have been raised for the defence, one as to the operation of the penal clause 222 of the Harbours Act 1878. In my opinion the penal clause 222 will not apply to offences under sections 31 and 32 of the “ Public Revenues Act, 1870.” The incorporating section 14, it it can be called an incorporating section, is incomplete. It simply provides that sections 31 and 32 of ‘‘The Public Revenues Act, 1878,” shall be deemed to apply to and include accounts of Harbour Boards, and the Audit Office shall have the same powers in relation to such accounts as it has in. respect of accounts relating to the receipt, custody, and expenditure of public moneys under the said Act. It does not incorporate those sections, but the accounts of Harbour Boards are, so to speak, relegated to the operation of “The Public Revenues Act, 1878,” and the laches of persons having to do with matters dealt with by these sections must, I think, be punished under the penal clause 82 of that Act if under any. The information will be dismissed. Mr Nalder applied on behalf of the Harbour Board for costs, which were allowed.