MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14245, 20 June 1908, Page 10

MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS.

THE DAXNEVIRKE IMBROGLIO. (Per U.n-itkd Pres3 Association.) WELLINGTON, June 19. " I think H. a a very important question. There is no decision which assists! us at all, ' said .Sir Justice Cooper this morning m deciding tho case of the Corporation of Dannevirko v. Pastor Hies, Mayor of tbo borough. This was an ncuon tor a mandamus to compel the Mayor to put certain motions to tho council which he reiused. to put on the ground that they were not in order. On one occasion the Mayor iclused to put one of the motions, and left tho chair, faying that the meeting was adjourned. The council, however, appointed ouo of its number chairman, and passed the resolution in question, but, the Mayor retorted by refusing to allow to bo put in the minutes the business done after nt: had left the chair. He also refused to put, the motion of protest against his eonduct, in this respect. For the defence it was submitted that the court had no juri--diction, and that the matter was one which must be left, entirely to the Mayor. If the Mayor made a mistake he was answerablo to his constituents, who could replace him if they thought fit. There was no suggestion of mala fides in this matter. His Honor said: "In the, present case the defendant claims that his action has been approved at a public meeting of the inliaoitints of Dannevirke, and that on this bread ground he is justified in his action. This is an assertion that the Mayor can, if he thinks that ho will be backed up by a section of the ratepayers of the borough, prevent councillors who are entrusted by statute with the administration of the affairs of the borough from exercising their statutory rights and from performing their statutory duties. It is equivalent to saying thai the Mayor and an irresponsible section of the ratepayers can depose the council. Such an argument if given effect, to would destroy the, system of local government. It is clear that thcMayor bas-no such right, or power. In my opinion the court has jurisdiction to entertain a motion. If a notice of motion has been duly given by a councillor upon a matter relating to the business of the horough, then such councillor has a, legal right to have his motion brought before the council, and the Mayor, as chairman of the meeting, is bound in law r to allow it to be seconded, discussed, and put to the vote of the meeting. If h© refuses to do so, then, in my opinion, this court, has tho power by mandamus to compol him to do so. There is, it is true, no direct authority upon the matter." I Id his Honor's opinion the real truth of the matter was that tho defendant believed he was acting in the best interests of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the borough with the approval of a great majority of such inhabitants and ratepayers, and that he ruled tho motion out of order because at a meeting of ratepayers on December 12, 1907, a majority voted against the work being done. His Honor held the action of tho defendant in relation to motions N05.,2 and 3 (in respect of High street) and the report of the Public Works Committee to Ixj ultra- vires. Ho said lie was prepared to make an order for a mandamus, directing it to lie in the office for 14- days to enable tho defendant, if ho so desired, to give notice of appeal. If the defendant did adopt this course, as counsel said was probable, his Honor would stay proceedings pending the decision of the Appeal Court.