CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 531, 1 February 1870, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.

Mondat, Jan. 31

The Council met at the usu\l hour this evening. Present : The Mayor and Councillors Bishop, Anderson, Hart, Jameson, Pratt, Sawtell, and Calvert.

Mr James Goss took his seat as a member of the Council.

The Town Clerk reported that the receipts during the week were as follows :— City rate, 1869, £71 16s ; watering rate, £3i 15s ; scavengering, £9 6s 5d ; rents from Marketplace, 7s ; total, £116 4s 5d ; credit at the Bank, £142 3s 2d.

Accounts to the amount of £236 13s 4d were passed and ordered to be paid. On the motion of Councillor Anderson, seconded by Councillor Jameson, Dr Foster's account for £38 17s 3d (commencing in May, m|B69) was passed and ordered to be paid. ™The City Surveyor's report was read. It stated that tenders would be laid before the Council that evening for a new roof for the Post-office and for repairs to the building ; also for keeping the river Avon clear of watercress from Ist Feb., 187O* With reference to Mr Farr's letter, the Surveyor thought that that gentleman ought to have been the last person to have complained of his practising his profession after bnsiness hours, as he (Mr Farr) was the first person who employed him (the Surveyor) to draw plans after he became City Surveyor ; there was nothing in the City Surveyor's agreement to prevent him practising privately out of business hours ; that when the building by-law came into operation, it was his (the Surveyor's intention to have written to the Council, stating that by it 3 operation he was precluded from doing any private business within the prescribed limits of the city; and that as addi'ional work would be required from him under that by-law, he should be allowed the surveyor's fee laid down in the by-law for superintendence; that the Fire Brigade Committee recommended a email alteration in th« site of the pit under the steam fire engine, at an expense of £3 10s ; that a couple of lamps had been broken; that the labour gang had beea employed in various works within the city during the week. There were two tenders sent in for the Post-onlce roof, viz., Rastrick and Son, £60; Rankin and Greig, £59 15s.

On the motion of i ouncillor Jameson the matter was deferred for a week, it being considered by some of the Councillors that the tenders were somewhat excessive.

*jj*The following tenders were opened for keeping the river free of watercress :— McNamara t £4s; E. Palmer, £52 10s; John McWilliam, £40.

On the motion of Councillor Calvert, se conded by. Councillor Jameson, the tender of John Me William was accepted. With regard to the matter between the Surveyor and Mr Farr, ; it was resolved, on the motion of Councillor Anderson— "That this Council declines to interfere at present with the manner in which the City Surveyor employs himself outside office hours."

The work with regard to the steam fire engine was ordered to be done.

The remainder of the Surveyor's report was approved of.

The Chief Fire Inspector reported that only one fire had occurred during the past quarter, viz., on the v6th Dec , 1869; on the 17th instant, all four companies assembled together for inspection practice; similar inspections would be held every quarter; the attendance of members for the past halfyear had been very satisfactory; a cricket club had been formed amongst the members of the brigade since last quarter. - ■-•

The report was approved, being considered Kighlv satisfactory. ,-. The usual weekly report from the Inspector of Nuisances was read and approved;

The following opinion from Dr Foster was read, and its publication sanctioned, on the motion of Councillor Hart, seconded by Councillor Cal vert:—

." I thiuk Councillor Hart's motion carries thefprce of the Act somewhat beyond the intention of the Legislature.

" The rule of construction as laid down by Lord Tenterden in an analogous case (Pan tor v. Mainwaring, 3 Band A 146), is as follows; — ' This being a penal clause in this Act of Parliament must not be extended by construction ; and though there may be cases .suggested .falling within the - mischief, intended to be prevented by the Legislature, yet if they have not used proper words so auto include mem within the prohibition, it ia not competent for the Court to extend the Act of Parliament to them by construction.: Now the words are,' &u. "The Act does not anywhere say in words th t the supply of goods by a Councillor is to incapacitate him from continuing to hold office; and inasmuch as the Act does not say so of goods supplied, and does say so of work done, it would violate a fundamental maxim of construction to hold that 'the supply of goods incapacitated. :

" On the other hand it may be said that an order for the supply of goods is a contract, and that ' any contract ' is forbidden by the 370 i clause. There is an early English iiuthority (R v. York, 2 Q H, 847) which applies this principle to the nearly similar clause in the English Act. The language of the two clauses is however not identical, and ;I think the language of our own Act fur-

nishes an argument against the application of that authority.

"Founding myself on the above wellknown principles of construction, I am of opinion that the supply of goods does not incapacitate a Councillor; but I need not say also that those who think differently have an argument in th ir favour.

" The expression (see Tonsey v. White, 5 B and C, 131) work to be done under the authority of the Council appears to me to be intended to prohibit Councillors f>oin evading the intention of the Legislature, by accepting sub-contracts from contractors with the Council itself. The Legislature could easily have said, if they had meant it, c work done for the Council ; ' but they have not said it, and I do not think they can be construed, in. a penal clause, to have meant it."

The Council then adjourned,