MIRAMAR AND HUTT COUNTY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1798, 22 August 1906, Page 53

MIRAMAR AND HUTT COUNTY

ADJUSTMENT OF ACCOUNTS. COMMISSIONER’S DECISION TO BH DISPUTED. The report of Mr W. S. Short, the Commissioner appointed to inquire into the adjustment of accounts between the Borough of Miramar and Hutt County was considered at a recent meeting of the Hutt County Council. When Miramar wag constituted a borough, it ceased to be under the jurisdiction of the County Council. The borough claimed a share in the property of the County Council, and after inquiry, the Commissioner decided that the accounts would be equitably adjusted by the payment of <£1179 2s 4d by the County Council to the Borough Council, with £36 15fl costs. The Commissioner’s report was read by the county clerk. The chairman, Councillor R. Bould» said the decision seemed to him an unjust one as far as it went. Councillor Wakeham: Well, I euppos® this is final. Councillor Moore: Why should it be final ? The clerk, Mr Atkinson, said that, according to the Commissioner, both the local bodies had agreed to accept his decision. Councillor Moore: When did we agree to it? The Council has never agreed to it. The clerk said it had been agreed toy he thought, between the solicitors for the two parties. Councillor Robinson thought it best to leave the matter as it stood. The Commissioner had come to a decision, judiciously, honestly, and in accordance ivith law. There was some discussion on the question whether the report should stand over for consideration until Councillor Moore’s motion to contest the decision of the Commissioner was dealt with. Councillor Robinson proposed that the decision should be accepted. It was decided to first consider Councillor Moore’s proposal. Later Councillor Moore moved, in accordance with notice given:—"That the Council petition Parliament to set aside the award of the Commissioner appointed by the Governor to make an adjustment of accounts between the Hutt County Council and the Borough of Miramar, on the grounds that the constitution of the borough is illegal, the said borough never having contained the population required by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1900.” In supporting his motion, Councillor Moore said the borough had never been legally constituted. It had never contained the required population of one thousand. Last census the population was only 952. In 3901 it was only 432. This showed that at the time of the constitution of the borough, it contained between 600 and 700 people. People felt at the time that it was strange tee Government granted the petition. Their clerk had stated that sworn declarations had been made that the district contained the necessary number of inhabitants, but he (Councillor Moore) disputed the declarations made. Let them take the number of buildings in Miramar. In 1906 there were 240 inhabited houses in the district, in 1901 only 83 inhabited and 55 uninhabited: total 138. These figures conclusively showed that Miramar never contained anything like a thousand inhabitants. He felt sure if they went to Parliament they would have the support of conntry members. The finding of the Commissioner made the County Council appear much richer than it was. He believed that, if they could prove that the borough had not the necessary population at the time of it® constitution, they would win their case. If this point had been laid before the Commissioner he would have felt that it was not his place to decide the question of the constitution of the borough, as it was an act of the Administration to which he was himself subject. He hoped members of the Council would not be diffident in the matter. They would not need to engage lawyers to conduct their appeal. , , , ~ Councillor M. Welch seconded the motion. . . Councillor Robinson, m opposing the motion, said the Seatoun Road Board had been driven out of the county by the oppression of the County Council. Rates had been extracted from the pockets of the people of the Miramar district without any works being carried out in return. He thought the decision of the Commissioner was only a just one, as giving some return to the Miramar district for the rates taken from it. As far as the County Council was concerned, he considered that, if the award was upheld, it would serve them right. The chairman, Councillor Bould, thought if they went to Parliament they would be told the borough had been constituted and they would be ruled out of Court. He thought it was childish to 'oppose the recommendation alter a\ hat they had done. ~ . , Councillor Moore thought it was not childish. When there had been a proposal to constitute the JohnsonA illo Town Board a borough, the agitators, of whom he was the leader, were told by Mr Short, the Commissioner in the present dispute, that such a borough would be on an unsafe basis as it contained some thirty less than the population required. It was not light that their ratepayers shouJa have to pay .£1179, owing to the negligence of the Colonial Secretary in granting the status of a borough to a community which was not entitled to it. The motion wa6 carried, Councillor Robinson dissenting. Councillor Moore suggested that the County Clerk should write to the Colonial Secretary in order that he might not make any order in accordance ivith the Commissioner’s recommendation before the Council appealed.