KAUAERANGA HIGHWAY BOARD ELECTION.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1754, 17 August 1874, Page 2

KAUAERANGA HIGHWAY BOARD ELECTION.

BOBEffT SCOTT BBWIOB T. IBKUBI. JOHN BldffiXL. , '. , . r > i Lemuel John Bagnall irks called upon to show cause to,the Court why. he should not bo adjudged by the said Court to be ousted.*, of the •ffice of member of the Kauaeranga District ' Board, «n the ~s grounds that he was elected contrary to, ■. the provisions of the Act; Ist because ■/ such election did not take place at the annual meeting of ratepayers but at an '-. adjourned meeting; 2n4 because at. such, election votes by proxy were Miot, taken by the person presiding'it the '' meeting, 3rd because at the said election rotes'were not taken according Wine i scale prescribed by the said Act;,, 4th { that there war no notice given of the meeting at which the election is presumed to have taken place. Mr. Tyler and Mr. Macdontld f«r plaintiff. Defendant not represented by \ counsel. .-..-. - - j Mr. Tyler opened the cue, and said ] that the plaint was laid under the 27th I section of the Highways Empowering |

-Act, which enabled Resident Magistrates to heaivproceedinfi for ousting any person who, it may be alleged, has been improperly elected. Mr. Tyler then referred to the annual meeting of ratepayers, called by'B. M. Mitchell, and the subsequent adjournment—in consequence, it was alleged, of the inconvenience of the hour, which adjournment was carried^without any business being done, although a quirnm was present. At the. »<«purned meeting was eajled was transacted. At .uchiteetin^howe^, iUeTOteswere not taken according to the scale provided by the lith section of the Highways Act^., A Ji«#iof was taken,*anda po^deJ^efeby * ratepayer; named^Jphn loiKnionw^s refused^.; The persdns preJumcd to be elected had jsincc met as Highway Trustees, and the^fendanthtd; jfien elected chairman of the Board, the Spoiatmentshating subsequently being SSttedt He (Mr. Tyler) mentioned this because ia:-instituting proceedings for ousting any person from an office it must be shown that the person presumed^tabe elected had already assumed the duties of that office. Mir. Tyler then enumerated theobjection* as set forth in the summons. He contended that the Act gave nopower for adjourning the business of election ot trustees and striking a irate. It might be argued that every .meeting had an lncidental power of adjournment, but nvthis case it had not, being precisely stated by statute that certain business should be transacted on a certain day, notice of which should be given. He fMr. Tyler) had been looking up several English statutes, and his research went to show that where power of adjournment wins given, it was specified by enactment. (He instanced several caies in support of this argument.) He therefore contended that the meeting had no power to adjourn. It had been argued, also, that corporations had an incidental power of adjournment, ; but: at this meeting the business was notproceeded with. . , _ , His Worship asked, would it not be better to adduce the facts of the case instead of going into the law. Some of the facts might;be disputed. For instance the objection set forth that the business was not enfcered'upon, when Mr. Bagnall waselected chairman; that was a commencement of the business. . . The learned counsel did not apprehend airy difficulty in that quarter. The appointment of a chairman was net provided for' Under the section which set forth the business. The present complainant had protested against the adjournment, stating his reasons that he could not attend on the. day of the adjourned meeting, and in consequence of such adjournmejat hehad been disfranchised by the majority. He would not refer to the proxy objection, beeausehewasnotawarethatanyproxieswere present. As to the mode of voting that was specified. It could not be by show of hands, because of the plurality of votes given by the law according to the amount of rates. (The learned counsel quoted authorities to show that| in an election it wai a right of pei sons to demand a poll, and an action could lay against a person presiding who refused). The last objecturn was that no notice was given of the adjourned meeting. The business of the meeting not baring been entered upon at the first meeting, fresh notice was necessary. . _ Mr. Tyler then put in Gazette of August .1868, bringing the district under 1 the Highways Act and defining boundaries ; Gazette of June 25,1872, altering boundaries; Gazette Sept.* 6,1872, further amending boundaries; Highways Act, 1867; Highway* Act Amendment Act, 1871; Highways Act, 1874, under which election took place; Gazette Dec. 30,1871, bringing part 6 of Highways Empowering Act into operation in the district. He then called—. Duncan Macnab, who,£oa being sworn said—That he was a commission agent residing in Shortland, and was, the latter part of last year, chairman oftheKauaeranga Board. That Board caused the notification produced to be inserted, convening the meeting of ratepayers on July 18, at the Sandes-street school at 2 o'clock. Witness attended that meeting. There was a quorum present, from 15 to 20 ratepayers. Robert Scott was present. Defendant was also present, and a ratepayer named John Robinson—and a number of ' others—considerably more than ten; There was no business done, in connection with the annual meeting of ratepayers. A chairman was elected— T>ropOsed~by some person and seconded by'another. It was not put to the vote. Mr. Bagnall was elected chairman. Witness didn'tfknow who, but some one suggested that the meeting adjourn till Tuesday. The chairman said he couldn't be.present on Tuesday night,.but he could, on Monday, and suggested'that the meeting should take place on Monday aight. " Witness believed he first raised the objection that there was no power in the! Act' to adjourn when there was a quorum. Robert Scott also objected. The Chairman considered they had the power to; adjourn.. He said he had been one of the parties at the framing of the Act and thought ;he knew as much about it as any one.' It was then put to the meeting and carried. Robert Scott said he couldn't attend on Monday, but no notice was taken of it. Others objected—Mr. Thackeray was one. Knew a man named Win. Chapel by sight—thought he was present at the first meeting. Mr. Thomas was present; and Messrs. Greenville, Arden and Hwne were also present. (It was here' admitted that there was a quorum present at the first meeting). The, 'Meeting was adjourned after Mr. Thackeray's objection—the hour was about twenty minutes or half past two. Jlewas present at the second meeting, . and proceeded to perform the. business ' mentioned in section 17 of the Act. The; election took place, and 11 or 12 were' nominated as trustees. The election of: members was arrived at by a tihow of

hands. The names of the candidates were put down, and the chairman called for a show of hands for each. They appointed two tellers to take the show. The chairman then declared the five who had the majority of hands as duly elected, and ho (the chairman) -was one of the I'Somd 3 ofi those present seemed dissatisfied with the result and demanded a poll—one gentleman he heard, namely, Mr. Eobinson. The ■ Chairman said if' they! took a poll it would be twelve o'clock before they got through the business; it was then-about half-paifc seven. ;He afterwards Maid he would put it to the meeting wheth«r' the election should be carried oy a |poll or a show of hands; and he did so: the majority of the meeting Keihg dih favor, of a show of hands. Others besides those qualified to vote were present. Witness could not say whether any of those present not qualified to vote took part in the election. / By Mr. Bagnall—l think it was Mr. Cribb who proposed that you should take the chair. I don't think it was put to the vote. I didn't hear you aik Mr. Eobinson whether he would be satisfied to take the opinion of the meeting. I think the time at which the poll was demanded was. half : past seven—it was not so late as half-past nine; I remember that I .mentioned, at the adjourned, meeting that it was criminqu^for. Inpsef^no were not qualified to ypa&Q: part "'in,' the proceedings;^ ;'V::"V' ■/'^V'.' .^'!vlj: <im John Eobinson deposed! to 'being present at the meetings on the 18th and 201 h, and to having demanded a poll,.which was refused... '„..,,; t .,... „ „ %fi „ „-,,-. Kobert f Scott testified that-'he was 1 present at the first meeting and protested against the adjournment. William Power also gave evidence. Mr. Bagnall tendered an opinion from Mr. Hesketh which was to the effect that the adjournment was perfectly legaL Wm. Henry Crick was examined. He did not hear any one but Mr. Eobinson express dissatisfaction. William Thomas and E. M. Mitchell were also examined, their evidence being to th« effect that no one-had, claimed more thaii one vote. ; ' Mr. Macdonald addressed the Court, when his Worship reserved his decision till Friday next, to give him time to look into'the matter. ._ '[■, , C^ \".' !■',.,-*'.^ ( '. ; ;j-"'" Court adjourned."