THAMES HAURAKI COMPANY AND THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11781, 10 October 1901, Page 6

THAMES HAURAKI COMPANY AND THE DRAINAGE BOARD.

A WARM DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD. [from OUR OWN correspondent.] Thames, Wednesday.

At the meeting of the Thames Drainage Board this morning a somewhat animated, and at times heated, discussion took place over the action of certain members of the Board, who were also representatives of the Thames Hauraki Company, in taking proceeding's in the Warden's Court for moneys due to them by the company mentioned, thus forestalling an action pending by the Board against the same company for arrears of drainage rates. The chairman (Mr. J. M. Lennox), in opening the Board's proceeding;?, stated that before proceeding with the ordinary business, he wished to refer to the Board's claims . against the Thames Hauraki Company and the action of certain members of the Board in taking proceedings against that company on their own account. They had asked the Board to delay its proceedings against the company, and had taken advantage of such delay by pushing forward their own respective claims, and had secured judgment for the same. This happy family had all succeeded, although in their haste to register their claims they had acted somewhat illegally, but as the attorney for the company had admitted the claims, the illegality had been overcome and judgment obtained. He (the chairman) did not think such action would tend to expedite the arrangements that were being made for the development of the field, and he could not help feeling that the action of the members in question bad been of a somewhat "lowdown" character. As, however, Mr. Heskcth, one of the members referred to, was present, no doubt that gentleman might be able to explain matters. Mr. Hesketh said the chairman's remarks were unnecessary and unjustifiable, and showed that ho had either wilfully misrepresented matters or was entirely ignorant of the facts. The attorneys were anxious that the amount due by the Thames Hauraki Company to the Board should be paid, anil they had done everything possible to bring about that end. Their actions had been perfectly fair and above board. They had consulted the Board's solicitor and informed him of their intention to take proceedings against the Thames Hauraki Company, and had asked him to join with them by uniting the Board's claim. He was satisfied that the solicitor _ (Mr. Earl) would have consented to join forces, but the chairman of the Board had declined to sanction such a proceeding. There was nothing low down in that action. They wished themselves as creditors and the Board also to be placed on the same footing. In declining to unite forces he believed the chairman had acted unwisely. The Chairman said the whole proceeding was extraordinary. How could he ask the Board to mix themselves up with claims which they knew nothing about? They did not know if the accounts were owing, or whether they would be disputed, but' the Board's claim was a just one. What lie objected to was that after the members in question had prevailed upon the Board to delay proceedings, they took their own eases to Court and obtained judgment. They had 110 right to put in such preferential claims, and he would say again that it was a lowdown proceeding, and ho was sorry that gentlemen of their standing had done such a thing. He maintained that indecent haste had been shown to get ahead of the Board, and he still held that the preliminaries of the prosecution were illegal, and had only been overcome bv the attorney of the company admitting the debts. Mr. Green asked If the Thames Hauraki Company had admitted the Board's claim. The Chairman replied that it had not, but the claims of those who had taken proceedings were now as good as the Board's. He supposed the Board's solicitor was still o-o-ing on with tho Board's action against the Thames Hauraki Company, but lie did not consider the members referred to had acted fairly with the Board. ■ They appeared, however, to be very friendly with the other people.

Mr. Bunion thought the chairman should not make such accusations. The members of the Board who sued the Thames Hauraki

Company were as much entitled to their money as the Board was. The Chairman said he was still of the same opinion, notwithstanding the explanation made. Mr. Hesketh considered there was no need of making the matter a personal one. The members of the Board had acted quite within their rights, and had been above board in all their dealings, so that neither himself nor Mr. Dunlop had anything to be ashamed of. The Board had had the same chance of putting themselves on an equal footing as those who had sued the company, but the chairman had declined to give his sanction. Mr. Green thought the Board in future should act more promptly in urging their claims, but at the same time he considered the chairman had acted in the best interests of the Board in not agreeing to take joint action with the other creditors. The Chairman said the Board's account against the company was an indisputable one. They had not been harsh with the company, for at the present time the latter was owing £500 for drainage contributions. This money was required to enable pumping operations to be continued, and to dispel any feeling of unrest that might be felt as j regards the possibility of stopping pumping. ■So far as his action was concerned, he was j not going to allow the Board's accounts to | be mixed up with other accounts which he knew nothing about. Ho condemned the action of those members who had taken the proceedings referred to, and said it was a low-down thing to do, and a deliberate attempt on the part of these men to rush the thing through to the Mr. Dunlop: I deny such a thing. It is a falsehood. You have no right to make such a statement.' The Chairman: Yon said what ' Mr. Dunlop (with heat) : I said it was a falsehood and The Chairman: I must ask you to withdraw those words. I will not sit here and be spoken to like that; neither will I allow the business of the meeting to proceed until you do withdraw your words. Mr. Dunlop: I will not withdraw the words. What right have you to make such a statement? Tho Chairman: If you don't withdraw, I will have you put out of this room. Mr. Dunlop: I would like to see you put me out. I will put you out. The Chairman: I won't; but I will have you put out. I will call a policeman and have you put into the street. Will you withdraw those words?

Mr. Dunlop: No, I won't; and I want to se» you put me out. The Chairman: Will someone go for a policeman: I will not allow the meeting to procced until the words are withdrawn or he is put out. At this point both Sir. Hesketh and Mr. Green requested Mr. Dunlop to withdraw the words complained of, and after some deliberation Mr. Dunlop agreed to do so, the chairman accepting the withdrawal. Mr. Maoky then moved, and Mr. Gray seconded, "That the action of the chairman in declining to join the Board's claim against the Thames Hauraki Company with the claims of other creditors be approved." This was carried by five votes to two. The Chairman thanked the meeting fir the vote accorded him, and said ho trusted tho action of the Board would result in good being done to the field. lie knew that steps were being taken at Homo to bring about a large amalgamation scheme, which would include the Thames Hauraki. The mitter then dropped.