ABOLITION REQUESTED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 101, 29 March 1939, Page 10

ABOLITION REQUESTED

RONGOTEA TOWN BOARD. PETITION TO COUNCIL. A deputation which presented a petition on behalf of 43 ratepayers of the Rongotea town district was received yesterday by the Manawatu County Council. The petition prayed that the Rongotea Town Board be dissolved, and that the council take it over. Tho deputation consisted of Messrs J. Graham and S. Teaz. Mr Graliam said that the petition was Ixiing formally presented under the provisions of the Counties Act, under which a council might, if it thought fit, dissolve a town board or road district, on being petitioned to do so. The petition was required to contain a majority of the signatures of the ratepayers, and to represent half of the rateable area, of the district. Tlie petition was signed by the 43 ratepayers and representatives of organisations. Mr Graham added that since tho petition had been drawn up a memorandum, which had been signed by seven ratepayers who had signed the petition, been made declaring that they had signed the petition under a misapprehension and requested that their signatures bo struck out. The signatures attached to the memorandum were: H. J. Claasen. F. M. Tomlinson, P. Vallender. J. Da-fter, H. G. Wright, D. S. Wood. Ellen Wood. The memorandum wa« included in a letter from Mr L. H. Yarrall, a. ratepayer of the Town Board district., which stated that the council could not deal with the petition because it contained signatures which had not l>een authorised, that the petition had not been published in accordance with the terms laid down in the Act, and that owing to the withdrawals the signatures did not represent a clear majority of the ratepayers. Air Graham contended that legally the petition was quite valid, the signatures having been verified. They had the memorandum containing seven signatures which had not been verified. He was not going into the matter in detail at present. There was no doubt that Rongotea might have had great prospects in the earlier days, but it was quite plain at present that conditions had changed. He quoted from the (statute Book a section of the Counties Act showing that no signatures could be withdrawn after the presentation of a petition to the council. Under the statutory requirements every signature had to lie verified, and he contended that if thev were withdrawn this would have to lx;’done in the same legal manner. It was quite apparent that the dissolution of the board would come about sooner or later. He suggested that tho council receive the petition and the request was agreed to. The chairman (Cr. W. E. Barber) said that the move contained in the petition came as a disappointment. He promised that the council "would go into the matter. Cr. W. E. Pearee said he quite agreed that if signatures had been formally given they should be withdrawn in tlie same way. The legal position was discussed by the council after the deputation lia-d withdrawn. The county clerk (Air A. R. Drew) said that if the council took any action on the petition it would be liable to an injunction. Onlv 35 of the signatures were valid, and as this did not comnrise the necessary number, the legality of the petition was questionable. Or. A. N. Aforcom said lie thought that it was just as well for the matter to l>e left in abeyance in the meantime. (!r. ,T. H. Perrett said he did not think that the withdrawals would be held legal in Court. Tt was decided that the matter be held over for consideration.