NO WORK FOR COMMISSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18662, 19 March 1924, Page 10

NO WORK FOR COMMISSION.

PETITIONERS STAY AWAY. OBJECTION TO A MEMBER. [by ™ TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON. Tuesday. For some years there has been dissatisfaction among a section of the ratepayers in the Mangawara Road Board's district in regard to the operations of the board. With a view to bringing about settlement of i the grievances the disaffected ratepayers successfully petitioned the Government to appoint a commission to inquire into the position. Messrs. F. Platts, S. M. A. J. Baker, Public Works Engineer, Auckland, and E. F. Adams, civil engineer, Thames, were appointed members of the commission.

When proceedings were about to open at Hamilton yesterday Mr. F. Swarbrick, counsel for petitioners, explained that he had received no instructions whatever from his clients. When the personnel of the commission was announced objection was raised to Mr. Adams having been appointed. Mr. Adams, it was stated, had given evidence some time ago on behalf of . the board and therefore it was considered scarcely probable that he would favour the petition. Mr. E. H. Northcroft, who appeared for the ratepayers opposing the petition, contended that the board had been unfairly treated when ratepayers after criticising its actions and its members, were not prepared to come forward and give evidence. The chairman, Mr. Platts, expressed great surprise at finding matters in such a state. Mr. Adams, with other engineers, had certainly given evidence against objectors to classification in the board's area some time ago, but the Government upon inquiring into the matter evidently saw no reason why he should not •sit on the commission. Mr. Platts suggested that if the petitioners reconsidered the matter they would find that there was very little substance in their objection to Mr. Adams.

When the commission met again this morning, Mr. Swarbrick said that he had received a telegram from the petitioners intimating that they still took exception to the presence of Mr. Adams on the commission and refused therefore to state their case before the commission. Mr. Platts said that the commission was of opinion under the circumstances that it could not go on. If, he said, the petitioners had given reasonable notice of their intentions a great deal of expense could have been saved. Witnesses had even been brought from Westport. The petitioners had taken up a position which was very difficult to justify. Costs were awarded 1 against the petitioners, totalling £154 6s, of which £97 13s is due to the board and the balance of - £55 13s to the ratepayers supporting the board.