LOCAL BODY PROCEDURE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19972, 14 December 1926, Page 10

LOCAL BODY PROCEDURE.

APPLICATION TO COURT. A QUESTION OF VOTING. (Special ro ...aily Times.) AUCKLAND, December 13. A nice point in local body procedure came before Mr Justice Adams when George Jarrett, shorthand writer, ot J3irkouuead, represented Dy Air lieckerleg, instructed by Mr A. Hanna, applied ten a writ ot certiorari quashing a resolution passed by the BirKenliead liorougii woun cil (Air cocker), refusing an application ho had made concerning access to. ins section at Bintennead. in previous proceedings it was alleged by plamtnx . that the c-ouiieil had determined ms application without giv ing him an opportunity of appearing bo fore it m terms ot section lb ol the Public Works Act, i9U. These proceedings were withdrawn on condition that the council reopened tlio matter and allowed plamtill to exercise ids rights under the section mentioned. Gn August 1 oi this year .Jarrett appeared before a meeting of the council and stated his case at that meeting. However, there were only six members present, but when the application was considered on August 15, 10 members were present and voted on the question it was contended that the body which heard the plaintiff was not the body which adjudicated upon his application. In other words, it was pointed out that four councillors had voted on the application without having heard the plaintiff when he appeared beior the council. , . rl Mr Beckcrleg admitted to his Honor that if the council as a whole had adopted the recommendation of the six councillors ins client would have no grounds for complaint There was, however, nothing to snow that the four councillors had acquainted themselves with the details of the application. Further, had only ‘he six councillors voted on the question Jarrett could not complain. Counsel added that there was no allegation of mala fides against the council. The jurisdiction of the tour, in the matter was limited to directing tbe council to reopen the queston. The merits of application could not bo considered by the court. Only the council could deal with them. , Mr Cocker pointed out that the application had been before the council on several occasions since 1919, and on every occasion it had been refused. The present application dated from May, 1923. He submitted that plaintiff had no right to a writ of certiorari on tue grounds brought before the court. Full minutes had been taken of the meeting of August 1, and these had been circulated to all the members of the council before the meeting of August 15. The minutes contained a resume of the speech made by Jarrett to the six councillors. All the members, therefore, were acquainted with the details of the legal aspects ot the case. Mr Cocker submitted that a council was a corporate body separate from its members and capable when a quorum was present of exercising its functions inde,-. pendent of its personnel. He contended that if the submissions of Mr Beckerleg were accepted a councillor elected at a by-election would be debarred from voting on any matters which were in process of being dealt with by the council at the time ot his election. The onus was also on plaintiff to show that the requirements of natural justice had not been complied with, and this counsed submitted lie had failed to establish. Decision was reserved.