MARLBOROUGH PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXV, Issue 80, 30 June 1866, Page 3

MARLBO ROUGH PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

The fifteenth, session of the Marlborough Council was opened at Blenheim, by the Superintendent, on the 15th instant. The following bills "were introduced by the Government, all of which, with one exception, were introduced aud discussed iv the previous session : — A Bill to facilitate Drainage in the Province of Marlborough. A Bill to prevent the planting of Gorse Hedges in the Towns of Blenheim and Picton. A Bill to enable the Superintendent to appropriate the Awatere Shearing Eeserve for Educational purposes. A Bill to amend the Licensing Act. A Bill to amend the Provincial Council Enlargement Act Amendment Act. A Bill to amend the Marlborough Fencing Act. A Bill to amend the Police Regulation Ordinance. A Bill to enable the Superintendent to divert and stop up certain Roads, and to repeal the Alteration of Koads Act. A Bill to provide for the making and maintaining of Roads in the Province of Marlborough. We quote the following passages from the Superintendent's speech. : — The appointment made by you, during last session, of a Select Committee to take into consideration the "Main Trunk Roads Bill," having been cancelled by the prorogation of the Council, I have, with the advice of my Executive Council, framed in lieu thereof a bill, by which the expense of making and keeping open the great line ol communication from the boundary of the Nelson province, at the Heringa, to the boundary of the Province of Canterbury, together with the branch line from Picton to Blenheim, will be borne by the Government ; while tho other roads in the province will be made and maintained by rates, to be levied in the several districts, as enumerated in the schedule of the bill; each district having the control over the roads within its limits. I trust that this important and long delayed subject will receive at your hands that consideration which so grave a question as direct taxation requires. The Estimates will again be submitted to you without alteration. They have been drawn up with the strictest regard to economy in every department, while at the same time they provide amply for the efficiency of the public service. I may congratulate you a*nd the Province generally on the improvement in our financial position, and am happy to be able to state that at the end of this month, which is the close of the financial year, we shall not only be out of debt to the Bank of New Zealand, but have a balance to our credit ; a position I had hardly dared to hope for when I first addressed you as Superintendent of the province. And I would therefore recommend that further provision, in addition to the sum proposed in the Estimates to be laid before you, be made for a Sinking Fund, to meet the liabilities due by us in 1870, on account of our share of the Nelson debt. As far as we can gather from the published report of the proceedings of the Council, all the bills introduced by the Government were passed except the one to appropriate the Shearing Eeserve in the Awatere, whicli was thrown out on the second reading by ten votes to seven.

Board of Wobks Assessment. — A case, tried in the District Court, at Picton, on the 15th instant, it possessed of some interest for the ratepayers in Nelson. Mr. Bagge, Secretary to tho Blenheim Board of Works, brought an action against Mr. J. Sinclaii for £92 9s. 3d., for recovery of rates. Mr. Conolh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Mofßtt for thi defendant, who took three objections :—": — " That the plaintiff, not being a member of the Board, nor theii clerk, was not entitled to sue." This objection, aftei some argument, was waived. "2. That the assessors were not fit and proper persons to make the assess ment, being members of the Board at the time." The 15th section of the Act provided for the assessmenl being made or amended to the satisfaction of tht Board. It was therefore evidently intended thai the Board should act to regulate the assessment There were three Bteps to be taken :— Firstly, the making of the assessment ; secondly, its revision \>y the Board ; thirdly, the appeal to tho justices giver by the 16th section. It was therefore necessary thai the assessors should be indifferent persons, and noi members of the Board, as, otherwise, they would be judges in their own cause. "3. The 16th section ol the Act was in violation of the 19th section of the Constitution Act, which prohibits local authorities from establishing new courts of judicature. Such a new court was established by giving an appeal to justice ; and as, in this instance, that section had been acted upon, the assessment was thereby invalidated." Mr. Conolly having replied his Honour gave the following judgment : — " Witli respect to the question whether the 16lh clause ol the Act was ultra vires or not, he observed that the magistrates to whom the appeal lay formed a courl constituted prior to the passing of the Act. It was one thing to create a new court of judicature, anc another to confer additional jurisdiction on a courl already created. Even assuming that that Bectior was in violation of the ' Constitution Act,' it woulc not necessarily invalidate the whole Act of which il formed a portion. It would merely leave the rate payers without any power of appeal. The fact thai , some persons had appealed had not prejudiced the defendant. He had not appealed, and his assess i ment had not been altered. On the other point, hii . judgment must also be in favour of the plaintiff Members of the Board were not expressly disquah i fied by the Act from performing the duties of ases . sors ; and the fact that the by 47th section members o i the Board were to hold no paid office in the gift o the Board, rather implied that they might hold ai office which was unpaid. He should have no doub [ upon the Biibject but for the 15th section. Th< F mention in that section of tho assessment as beinj i made or amended to the satisfaction of the Board i might, or might not mean that the Board had th , power of amending the assessment after it had beei > prepared by the assessors; and contemplate thei l being a kind of court of appeal; but he shpuli hold" it to mean only that it was the duty of th . Board to see that the assessment was correct in form. t Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs. Mr. Moffit i stated that he should give notice of appeal to th i Supreme Court. i A Remabkable Vebdict. — In the case Mar* . borough Press and General Printing Company 1 . Godfrey, lately brought in the District Court at Pi< , ton, to recover the sum of £28 4s. 3d. for subserii 3 tion to the paper, and for printing and advertisin( - the defendant pleaded that he was not liable, excepi s ing for the subscriptions and advertisements, an that the latter were overcharged. He also claimed r set-off in excess of plaintiff's demand, being £10 fc i writing six leading articles occupying ten columns < s the paper, and £29 ss. for writing the (l History < i the Province of Marlborough." After evidence ha i been taken, the jury retired, and on returning 1 Court the foreman, in reply to the question of tl Judge, as to whether they had agreed upon the verdict, replied "We have. Tho evidence is vei contradictory. The case is to be dismissed, an each party to pay their own expenses." His Honoi the Judge informed the jury that he could not r eeive such a verdict. He said, "If the evidence •, contradictory, it is for you to consider which sic o you believe. I never heard of such a verdict as th c in my life. I have already told you that it is yoi y duty to examine the evidence upon each item, aud I 0 find your verdict accordingly. As to the question i ff costs, that is a matter entirely beyond your provini c to decide." The jury again retired, and in about ha i- an hour returned, with a verdict for the plaintiff i c to the minor items, excepting one of 12s. for 'Fa 1 Play's' letter. They reduced the charge for r printing the ' History of the Province,' from £4 p i, sheet to £1 9b., and allowed the defendant a set-c c of £6 for six leading articles. The result was balance in favour of the plaintiffs of £7 11s. 9 Judgment was entered for plaintiffs for £7 lla. 9c and £6 19s. 6d. costs.