County Solicitorship

Northland Age, Volume 27, Issue 39, 19 October 1927, Page 4

County Solicitorship

What Is The Retainer

What Does It Involve

Council Getting Opinion Mr T F Martin To Advise

The position of the Mangonui County Solicitors in so fat as the cases now pending, is concerned was mentioned by Mr J N Berghan at the meeting of the Council on Friday last. He said this question was exercising the minds ot a great many ratepayers throughout the County and he had been approached by several and asked to bring this matter before the Council with a view to getting down to where the Council stands in this matter.

“I am going to move,” said Mr Berghan, "that we write to Mr T F Martin the New Zealand Counties Association Solicitor and ask him if the County Solicitor has created a breach of his retainer by appearing for the defence of Mr McKinnon. We want to put the position clearly before Mr Martin and if our Solicitor has broken his contract we should know how to deal with hirn. It is not nice to hear ratepayers talking about this matter as they are and we should place a statement of the circumstances before Mr Martin and we should ask him for his opinion and if in his opinion our County Solicitor has committed a breach of his retainer as is suggested we will know how to act. Quite a number of ratepayers have spoken to me about this, and I’ll move in that direction.

The Chairman; Who will supply the statement. Mr Berghan : We as a council wll supply that statement. We should ascertain whether the County Solicitor has created a breach of his office in appearing in the case brought by the' Crown against McKinnon. There is quite a lot of talk going on, and I don't know whether the County Solicitor should have been here during a discussion on this matter or not.

Mr Houston : I second Councillor Berghan's motion. You will ’•emember Mr Chaifman that I referred to this matter when the Council went into committee to,- hear the Auditor’s charge against McKinnon. The room was cleared, even the Press was ordered out, and I asked the question when Mr Logan came along. I asked you ‘who is Mr Logan representing?’ and you said, ‘I asked him to come.’ This is a very serious business, and I have asked Mr Logan to be here to watch proceedings onj behalf of the Council. Then we found out afterwards that Mr Logan was appearing for Mr McKinnon. We should have this position definitely stated. Any letter sent should show what Mr. Logan’s retainer is and what are the conditions of that retainer. If Mr. Logan is to be retained by the Council his duty is to safeguard the interests of the Council in any case in which the Council may be interested. The conditions must be laid down in the retainer. Ratepayers from one end of the county to the other and even strangers in the North have commented upon this matter and I have been made tired answering telephone culls asking for an explanation of the position. We should have Mr. Logan’s position clearly defined and all particulars relating to his retainer should be put before Mr Martin. Is he only retained on small matters which we put before him and then is at liberty to appear against the Council, or is the Council’s interests to come first. I maintain that the Council, is interested in the proceedings against Mr McKinnon, and Mr Logan is appearing for tne defence. This is a charge against an official of doing something against the interests of the Council ar d ratepayers, and Mr Logan should have appeared to watch the proceedings for the Council. He makes the excuse that the Council is not concerned with the case, and that it did not bring the prosecution. ThU is only

side stepping the issue. The Council is undoubtedly affected and the ratepayers are affected and if Mr Logan is retained to do the work of the Council he should have appeared to watch the case in the interests of the Council. If we pay a retainer we must have definite conditions established for the payment ot the retainer. Mi Berghan: I agree with Mr Houston, and in fairness to Mr Logan we should put all the facts before Mr Martin for his opinion, and if he tells us Mr Logafi has broken his retainer the Council will know the position. The Chairman: Mr Houston made the statement that I brought the County Solicitor here on that particular occasion. I did so and I think in my capacity it was my duty to explain and elucidate matters for the members of the Council to enable them to deal with the position, and I asked Mr Logan to come along as he was more conversant with it than I was. He came here at my Invitation. That has nothing whatever to do with what happened at the Court.

Mr Berghan: Mr Logan said he was not acting for anyone. Mr Long: He came here and his explanation and his presence was very valuable because we wanted all the assistance Wc could get as'there was a serious allegation against the Count; Clerk. Cr Berghan’s resolution bears upon the solicitor’s attitude at the Court but th s Council ha nothing to do with this. Mr Houston: You said you asked the solicitor to be present to watch the inquiry in the inter est of the Council. (

The Chairman: 1 don’t know how you put it. You can’t put a thing in five or six senses. Mr Houston : I asked why Mr Logan was here and you said you asked him to attend as this was a very serious case and you wished him to watch over it in the interest of the Council.

The Chairman : Contrary to fact.

Mr Houston: If you said that outside I would tell you straight what you are. I can’t do it here from my place at the Council table, but you make that statement outside and I’ll tell you in plain words. I asked you that question.

The Chairman: Mr Logan answered himself.' He said he was not acting for anyone. I asked him to be present to explain the position as he was more c®nversaui with it than 1 was. Mr Houston; Mr Logan was present as County Solicitor and he made a statement implicating another man and that Mr McKinnon was protecting him. The Chairman: There is no necessity to go into this. Mr Houston: You invited him. The Chairman : Yes but not in his capacity as County Solicitor. Mr Wrathall: “I think we are iuslified in asking that the County Solicitor’s position be defined.” Mr. Wrathall traversed the County Solicitor’s retainer from the time Messrs Reed and Q mrterly were solicitors to the County and then added, “I have always had at the back ot my mind the thought we had a right to challenge the right of Logan & Reynolds to claim a retaining fee because they have never been retained.” Continuing Mr Wrathall said the ratepayers claimed that Mr Logan in appearing for the defence was not acting in the interests of the Council and the resolution brought forward by Mr Berghan aimed at getting tl.e position defined. After some further discussion the resolution was carried and the Council decided to draw up a letter for submission to Mr Martin.