LOCAL BODY EXPENSES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19254, 17 February 1926, Page 14

LOCAL BODY EXPENSES.

A DISPUTED ALLOWANCE. DEPARTMENT CLAIMS REFUND. ACTION AGAINST EX-CHAIRMAN.' [BY XEI.EC!BAPE.™OWN CORRESPONDENT, j HAMILTON. Tuesday. A case of outstanding importance to members of local bodies as affecting their travelling expenses was heard in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday when the Audit Department (Air. H. T. Gillies) sought to recover from Henry Arthur Lurman, a former chairman of the Otorohanga County Council, the sum of £ll 16s. The defendant, who was represented by Mr. E. M. Mackersey, paid into Court £8 Bs, but denied liability. The circumstances, explained Mr. I Gillies, were that for the year ended March 31, 1924, the Audit Office tagged the balance-sheet of the Otorohanga County Council in regard to the payment !by the council of £2 2s per meeting to the members, each of whom was surcharged for the amount over 12s 6d per meeting. All the members except Mr. Lurman paid the amount surcharged, but Mr. Lurman refused to do so. Mr. Gillies contended that under the Public Revenues Act the surcharge could be questioned only if it was manifestly unfair. He relied on the decision of the House of Lords which recently upheld the English Audit Department in its claims against the Poplar and Bethnall Green Poor Law Guardians who paid their employees a greater sum than the amount allowed by law. For the defendant Mr. Mackersey submitted that the decision of Mr. Justice Williams expressed the view that members of local bodies were entitled to a reasonable amount per meeting. The same provision, said Mr. Mackersey, was re-enacted in the Act of 1920, and thus the decision became law.

The magistrate, Mr. Wyvern Wilson, reserved his decision.