PAHIATUA AND AKITIO

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11211, 6 August 1929, Page 5

PAHIATUA AND AKITIO

COUNCILS AT LAW HOAD MAINTENANCE CLAIM. The unusual circumstances of one County Council suing another was revealed in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday. the Hon. Mr Justice Smith, in granting a request for an adjournment, commented that it would be more in the interests of the ratepayers if the matter in dispute could he settled out of Court. The plaintiff body in the action w.ss the Pahiatua County Council, wh*%h sued the Akitio County < iiiiii.v Council for £,'63 10s Id for road' 5 maintenance. Mi Lloyd (Dannevirke), who appeared for defendant council and sought an adjournment until next session, explained that the money sued for was in respect of the Pongaroa-Makuri road. Under a warrant issued on February 1, 1(N)4. the Akitio Council had to contribute one-quarter of the maintenance of that road and payments uere regularly made until June 9, 1924. when the road was gazetted i main highway and the warrant cased to he effective. On September 29, 1925. the Main Highways Amendment Act cam© into force, section 7 reviving the liability of the Akitio County Council. Nevertheless, no claim was made for the quarter share until September 24, 1928, when a statement was furnished. Later, the chairman of the Pahiatua County Council told the Akitio chairman that it was not intended to .force the claim, so it was not seriously considered. On June 15 last. plaintiff's solicitors wrote demanding payment and threatening to issue a writ. The letter was received on June 17, and after consultation with his chairman, the Akitio County clerk readied that the matter would be considered at the Council’s next meeting, on July 8. No exception was taken by the plaintiff body’s solicitors, hut the writ was issued on July 6 and served at 3.40 p.m. on July 9, which was the last day for service in time for the present sitting of the Supreme Court. On July 15, the chairman and solicitor went to Wellington and spent the best jiart of two days inquiring into the claim from the Main High ways Board and the Public Works Department. Information was MBtpmised later by letter. On July , a te'egram was sent tg the .Pahiatua Council’s solicitor asking lor seven days’ extension of time to file a defence, if necessary, and oil .July 22. a letter was written, ’ sking consent to an adjournment of the cas till October. On July 24. a letter was received from the Public Works Department, saying that it was impossible to reconcile the figures of the claim. On July nt of defence and ; ouiiter-c’aim was filed and on August 1. the plaintiff Council was asked to file a more explicit statement of claim but that request had not been complied with. Mr Lloyd said that the Akitio County believed there would be a considerable amount of money payable. but exactly what that amount would be it could not tell until the claim was gone into properly. There was a counter-claim for gravel, which was raising an important issue. in that at its last meeting, the Pahiatua County Council instruct- > d it- solicitors to take s>teps to prevent the Akitio County Council irom taking metal out of the stream. After waiting so many years 'or its money, it was hardly be--1 evr.ble that the Pahiatua County Council was now wanting urgent payment. NO NOTICE OF COUNTER-CLAIM Mr G. H. Smith, counsel for the Pahiatua ( minty Council, stated "that he had not had the slightest notice of there being a counterclaim until after the Court had commenced, and such being the case, it had been brought forward too late, in any case, there was no connection between the claim ml the shingle. The Pahiatua Council decided to claim in September, 1928, and in November, an i ccount was rendered. In December a resolution was passed to take legal proceedings if the claim was not settled. Air TJovd had mentioned one chairman speaking to the other, but it must only have been an informal conversation and could have had no value in the face of letters that proceedings would be ruken. That was the position until June last. The Akitio Council had said it would consider the question on July 8, but that made it too late to issue the writ. It did nothing until after the session had commenced, ip September, 1928, detailed part cigars of the claim were given and no item was questioned intil August 3. Counsel did not consider th t was reasonable treatment. He li.id not been able to find any merits in. the defence. The claim was for improvements, maintenance and repairs only His Honor : What did you say about the P.W.D. not being able to reconcile tlie claim? Air Smith argued that the maintenance paid by the Highways Board bad very little hearing on maintenance paid by the county, which probably spent more than the third allowed" at that time by the P.AY.D. The amount r'aiined had been spent

by the Pahiatua Council for maintenance, repairs and improvements. He did not think it right of the defendant Council to ask for three months’ adjournment just because there might he some amount improperly included. He would produce to-morrow all particulars of items mentioned in the claim. The defendant body had been very dilatory.

Air Lloyd contended that after sleeping a long time on its rights, rush tactics were now being adopted , and it did not give one a chance.

His Honour remarked that substantially, the dispute was as to what tlie items Would or would not be. It was undesirable that this should he determined by litigation and it would be much more in the interests of the ratepayers if it was settled out of Court. The Akitio Council had been guilty of some delay, but on the other hand, the Pahiatua Council had delayed some years before acting at all. He would grant the adjournment to the next sitting of th© Court, the defendant Council t 0 pay the costs of the adjournment.—Manawatn Times.