MANGAWARA IMPASSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18889, 11 December 1924, Page 12

MANGAWARA IMPASSE.

COSTS OF THE COMMISSION

SUIT FOR ANNULMENT.

JUDGE RESERVES DECISION.

"BY TELEGRAPH.— OWV COBIIE9PONDENT.] HAMILTON. Wednesday.

A somewhat, involved civil action was heard before His Honor Mr. Jnstico Herdman, in the Supreme Court at Hamilton to-day, when Edward Charles Pilkington

(Mr. Northcroft) proceeded against Frederick William Plaits, S.M., of Te Kuiti, Alfred James Baker, public works engineer, of Auckland, and other members of the Mangawara Drainage Board Commission (Messrs. Northcroft and Johnston) for a writ of certiorari for the annulment of an order made against plain-

tiff and other members of the board for the costs of the commission.

Plaintiff's case was that, in November, 1923, petitions were sent to the Minister

"or Internal Affairs, asking for the oholi-

tion of the Mangawara River district. A Commission of Inquiry to investigate the position was set up, with Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., as chairman. The petitioners had strenuously endeavoured to procure the exclusion from the commission of a certain member, who had, some years previously, given evidence as an expert on behalf of the board in connection with a certain classification. An effort was made to procuro the substitution of some other person for Mr. Adams, but the Minister refused to interfere, and ne member would not resign. The commission sat in March, 1924. None of the petitioners took part in the proceedings, this being as a protest against the inclusion of the member in the commission. After an adjournment it was decided that the Board of Inquiry should remain unaltered, and the sitting was further adjourned for a day in order to inform the petitioners of this fact. Tho petitioners, however, failed to appear, and the commission thereupon did not hear any part of the objectors' case, being of the opinion that, in the absence of (he petitioners, it could make no recommendation to the Minister. Costs were thereupon applied for and allowed to the board and to the. private objectors, as fixed by the registrar at £154 6s. An order to th;s effect was drawn up. At the election of the new board in April. 1924. plaintiff, who had been a petitioner, was elected chairman of the board. In the following month he instituted the proceedings for prohibition and certiorari in respect of the order for costs made by the commission on the grounds that it was illegal for the commission to enter the inquiry owing to one of its members having previously formed and expressed" his opinion on the subject into which the commission was authorised to inquire; further, that plaintiff was neither cited as a party nor summoned to appear before the commission to give evidence, and that the order for costs could not be enforced in the Magistrate's Court, as the costs totalled more than £100. contended that plaintiff had not been cited to attend the meeting of the commission, and quoted legal authorities as to what could bo considered sufficient citation. It was also obvious, he said, that only if the actual hearin c of an inquiry took place were costs permissible, and he submitted that no such hearing had taken place. The ground for claim that Mr. Adams should not have been a member of the commission was withdrawn. For the defence it was maintained that sufficient citation had been made. Mr. Northcroft pointed out the vagueness of the definition for a citation, and quoted authorities to some length to prove his statement. Legal argument was brought by Mr. Johnston to show that the lower Court had power to enforce the payment of costs asrainst the board. His Honor reserved his decision.