MERGING.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 27, 2 October 1894, Page 2

MERGING.

We gave the opinion when the petition for merging Waimate was resurrected that it was illegal, and pointed out the absurdity of trying to make a petition of one district apply to au altered one. Acting on our suggestion legal advice was sought, and we give the opinion below which shows that not one legal step has been taken from its inception. It was pointed out in the Hawera Star in its correspondence columns, nearly a year ago, that the ratepayers were being led by a bush lawyer, and that they would fiud themselves landed in a hole, but the warning was treated with " supreme indifference," with the present result. It was attempted to be done in a " hole and corner fashion " from the start, and what we contend is, that if a movement is for the benefit of the public, giving it due publicity cannot do it any harm, but on thp contrary, will strengthen it, and as sure as any underhand work is attempted so surely will it fail. There is only one declaration as to the geriuinenness of the signatures, that of Mr R. E, Mcßae, but if that declaration purports to apply to all the signatures we have no hesitation in declaring it to be false, as some of the names we notice on a copy of the petition were signed in the writer's presence at the solicitation of Mr F. W. Beechey when Mr Mcßae was not present, unless ho may taken a second petition round, which' we v.ery nruoh doubt. Mr Hemmingway must also have known' that a number of signatures were obtained by Mr Beechy, who was employed for the purpose, and yet he utters the petition by presenting it to the Council without his declaration. The Act provides a penalty of £<">o for either of these actions! " A nunibej; o f names also appear on the petition' which iiad no right there, as they do not appear on the ratepayers' roll, and the Act provides that "the Council on it being reprinted iy them shall ciwae an en

quiry to be made as to the correctness of the signatures. This enquiry will, we believe, show that there are not sufficient true signatures left to make the petition valid. The following is the opinion of Mr Caplen on the matter : — Re petition to Hawera Couuty Council. —My opinion is asked if the resolution passed by the Hawera County Council, merging the western portion of the Waimate Riding in the County, is good at law. The facts are, that a petition was presented to the Hawera Couuty Council, bearing no date, signed by some 330 persons purporting to be County electors, and certain declarations were attached to various parts of the petition. The petition is comprised of numerous loose sheets of paper, having a common heading. The heading is as follows: " The Chairman and Councillors, Hawera County Council,.Hawera, —We, the undersigned ratepayers within the Waimate Road District, whose property is situated within the Hawera County, pray that the Hawera Couuty Council will, by special order, declare the Road Board of the Waimate Road District abolished and merged in the Hawera County." Some sheets are signed by several persons, others by a few. The declarations of' witnesses are not annexed or fastened to the petition or loose sheets, and the declarations are in words aud figures following : I, R. E. Mcßae, do solemnly declare that the signatures affixed to the above petition, sigued or initialled by me, are the genuine signatures of the persons whose tbey purport to be, and that such persons are County electors in the Waimate Riding, west of the Palmer Road. (Signed) R. E. Mcßae. Witness (signed) Geo. McLean. The petition was presented to the Hawera County Council as appears by the minute book of the Council on Friday, the 24th September, 1894. On the same day, but prior to the presentation of petition, the resolution adopting the eastern end of Waimate Road District being merged was carried. A copy of the so-called petition is sent herewith. I consider the merging of the western eud of the Waimate Riding is bad for three reasons. First, the petition was presented the same day as the merging of the eastern end, and the law takes no cognisance of a part of a day, therefore on that day of presenting petition it should contain not less than a majority of the ratepayers of the Waimate Road District, possessing iu the aggregate not less than half the rateable property therein. The declaration to the attestation of the petition is bad, as it says " County Electors." It should be " ratepayers," and many of the names do not appear on the Electoral Roll, although they might if they applied, vide section 39. Many are only " entitled to be enrolled." It is a majority of the ratepayers of such Road District, " or (uot "and") Town *District. The term " ratepayer" is not defined by the Act, so must turn to " The Road Boards Act 1882 " for a definition. The difference is marked in section 58, "Ratepayers of a Road Board," Electors of a County." The ratepayers of a Road Board are defined by section 38 of " The Road Boards Act 1882" : "Every persm of full age whose name appears on the Valuation Roll of a Road District," &c. Secondly, the petition wa3 not "published" within the meaning of the Act, the advertisement iu the Egmont Star of 18 th August, 1894, not complying with the requirements of the Act. Had it been required to give." public notice" or "publicly notified" it would be different, but the words are that, " Petition is published." The advertisement does not appear to be signed by any person. Thirdly, That the petition has to be signed by a majority of the ratepayers of such road districts ; subsection 2 of section 4 requires the petition to state >the number of votes. This so called petition does not do so. The special order is bad — vide section 124. It has to be done at a special, meeting. (Signed) H. Caplen.