THE WAITAKERKI EAST ROAD DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6966, 15 March 1884, Page 6

THE WAITAKERKI EAST ROAD DISPUTE.

A bather important meeting took place at the Waiteniats Oounty Counoil Chambers, Mr. James' cilice, yesterday afternoon, re the petition to divide the Waitakerei East l^oact District.

The Council were represented by Messrs. Mays, Monk, Laiog, Smythe, Beetham, and. their SacreUry, tii.f Waitakerei East Boad Board by Messrs. J. McElwaiu, Hueston, Jf. G. Lennox, and their S-scretary.

Mr. Edwin Uesketh, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Board.

Mr. O. Mays read the minute appoiniinc hieaieJf and ilr. James commissioners to enquire into the genuineness of the signatures in the aforesaid petition, as also the seotion of the Act which empowered them to do so.

Mr, expressed surprise to he»r that was all the business, stating that he understood that the question of the legality of the petition waa raised. He pointed oat first, that in dividing their district into two new districts the petition for each new district must be signed by two-thirds of the ratepayers of the present distric:. Had the new district taken a portion of another district than the pras«nt one, then the petition must be signed by two-thirda of the ratepayers of that district also. As it was the petition must be signed by two-thirds of the ratepayers in the entire or present district. Second : The Board had no power to present a counterpetition, there being no proviiion made for it in the statute. Third : If clearly made oat that some ratepayers had signed by reason of misrepresentation, then he was of opinion that the Supreme Court would restrain the Council from acting upon the petition, provided there was not two-thirds of the signatures remaining equal to twothirds of the ratepayers. Fourth :If the petition was not in fact signed by two-thirds of the ratepayers there, the petition required by law to be before the Co up oil before they conld act was not before them. Fifth :If the signatures were not verified by declaration is the form or to the effect of that set oat in the sesond schedule to the Act, then the petition coald not be acted upon, and it was of no avail. If the declaration did not allege that the signatures were ratepayers, ct resident homeholderß of the district, then each declaration was not "to the enect," of the one in the schedule to the Act. After an exhaustive debate on the rabject, in which it appeared that the petition was not legally testified to, and that the petition certainly did not contain more than onethird of the whole ratepiyers, the deputation irom the Baard withdrew. Mr. Psoeeet. on oath, stated that he had witnessed tne signatures to the petition, and that they had either previously read the petition er he had read it to them. Mr. Mats read over the signatures. The Clkrs or the Road Boabd objected to nine of them as not appearing on the ratebook. The number of the ratepayers were then taken, giving some 54 for the Henderson, or new district, and 63 in the Waitakerei East district. Tr.e somber in Mr. Probert's petition is 42. Mr. Marc, in answer to the Clebk's question, stated that he should be guided by the rate-book in estimating the numbers. The conference then terminated.