ONEHUNGA ZOO CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16823, 13 April 1918, Page 11

ONEHUNGA ZOO CASE.

BOYD'S APPEAL fAILS. JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURI A JvooitEST of interest to local autlor ties Ma delivered by Mr. Justice Coopt at the Supreme Court yesterday, in r< sped to an appeal by J. J. Boyd, of on< , hung; (Mr. Reed, K.C., and Mr. Ando son), against a decision of Mr. F. J Frazei-, S.M., in a case in which the if formation was laid' by J. H. 0. Colo (Mr. A. E. Skelton), and in which th appellant was fined £30 and costs nude tlio Municipal Corporations Act. Th appeal was heard by Mr. Justice Coopo and Mr. Justice Hoskinjr. The information laid in the lower Oour stated that the Onehunga Borough Cotm cil, at a properly-constituted meeting j adopted a by-law, whereby the keeping o | certain classes of wild animals in th* borough was prohibited. At a later meet ' ing a notice of motion to reicind*thiß by law was brought forward and Mr. Boyd I who was then Mayor, voted in favour o: ; the repeal of the by-law. Following thii !an information was laid against Mr I Boyd, alleging that be had voted on i matter in which ho had a pecuniar}' in terest, in that he was the proprietor o! the Onehunga Zoological Gardens, it which wild animals were kept. In tho course of a lengthy judgment Their Honors remarked:—"lt was argiwd for the appellant that the matter on which he voted was the making of a bylaw of general application affecting all other members of the public as well as himself—that the matter before the conncil on which ho voted was the principle of the by-law, and not the application of the principle to individuals, and that the appellant was interested in the principle of .freedom to keep such animals, but not pecuniarily in that principle. On the face of it the by-law was general in its terms, and applied to all persons within the borough, but it would render the statutory provision in question nugatory if under trie shelter of a motion general in its terms a councillor, who was in the position of being the only person within the borough whom the by-law could then affect, and whom it would immediately affect pecuniarily, could justify a vote on the motion. To' hold that a councillor so circumstanced could do this would tend to destroy that purity of local government—that freedom from individual selfinterest in its administration—which it is the object of the legislation in question to maintain. The real substance of the matter beforo the council, although couched in general terms, was whether the appellant shoflTd be allowed to keep within the borough the wild animals specified. He had a pecuniary- interest special and peculiar to himself in this matter, and he voted to advance that interest. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the con* viction affirmed."