THE KAIAPOI CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4610, 5 February 1883, Page 3

THE KAIAPOI CASE.

PROCEEDINGS TO RTBCOVEB THS

LOST BOOK 3

Kaiapoi Bobough Council v. 0. E. Dudley.

This was an information undor section 124 of the Municipal Corporations Act, calling upon dofendant to produco certain bookß, to wit rate and dog tax block roceipt booka, and certain vouchers for the payment of money of tho Council, whioh had been demanded by tho Council.

Mr Holmes appeared in support of the information, and Mr M. Nalder for defendant.

At the outset of this caao Mr Holmes commenced, " May it pleaso your Worships, this is a rery painful case " Mr Nalder at once interrupted, and called upon Mr Holmes to produce his retainer.

Mr Holmes continued : This was not necessary. He only appeared in support of the information of Mr Parnham, Mayor. Mr Nalder contended that when a Corporation appeared in Oourt it waß necessary for the special retainer to be produced under the seal of the Corporation. He quoted the case of Crawahaw v. Port Chalmers Corporation in Macoaßßey's Beports, page 718, in support, and asked the Bench to take a note of the objection. He did not wish to press the point, only to make it. Mr Holmes continuod by stating that there were osrtain rale and other books which Mr 0. E. Dudley held in his position as Town Clerk. He reviewed tho proceedings of the

Counoil since November last, and remarked that the Council had at last deemed it advisable to take proceedings against him under seotion 124 of the Municipal Corporations Act, as no reply could be procured without the disagreeable duty of taking these quasicriminal proceedings. He then produced the letters that have passed between the Mayor and Mr Dudley, which were duly read and oommented upon. The last letter from Mr Nalder stated that Mr Dudley had no books or papers the property of the Council, aB He had left them in the office when suspended. Mr Holmes pointed out that the necessary proceedings had then been taken, and that since then they had found that several receipts had been given for moneys which had not been accounted for. He put in five receipts for rates that had been paid and acknowledged by Mr Dudley to be correct. He called the following evidence :— Edwin Parnham, Mayor of Kaiapoi : The defendant had charge of the rato books end other doouments of the Borough Council in his capacity of Town Clerk, Bate Collector, and Borough Treasurer. In consequence of certain discoveries of discrepancy in the accounts, the Finance Oommittee sent for witness, who found that Beveral books, inoluding the block rate-book! of 1878, 1879, and 1880, were missing. That same night witness locked up the safe and gave Mr Dudley the office key, telling him to produce the books required by 10 o'olock the following morning. At that time the books were not produced, bat a letter was received from Mr Dudley tendering his resignation. Mr Dudley was appointed Town Olerk, kc, about 15 years ago. The Counoil authorised witness to demand the rate-books. Had also had a conversation with Mr Dudley on Jan. 18, in which he had asked Mr Dudley to help them, which he promised to do. Mr Dudley had not attended any meeting of the Finance Committee. The dog-tax book produced was the registration of dogs to July 1, 1882. There were two entries in the leger since that date, and there were no block 'receipts to show who paid those amounts. The other book also produced was found in its present mutilated state. Io Mr Nalder : When firat asked about the booka Mr Dudley said he could not tell anything about them. Witness had taken the key of the safe when he found that there were irregularitier. Mr Nalder had attended the Finance. Oommittee meeting, and had offered to give any information he could.

To Mr Holmes : As soon as the irregularities were discovered, witness had caused a new lock to be put on the door of the office, as he had learnt that there were several keys that would open the office door.

O. J. Champion, a member of tbe Council, said he knew Mr Dudley, who bad oharge of the rate and other books. He had charge of the rate block books, such as the receipts produced were taken from. Witness said that he remembered seeing the block rate receipts of 1878, 1879, and 1880 in Mr Dudley's possession in November, 1882. Mr Dudley had gone to Akaroa on leave of absence, and the Mayor had oharge of the offioe at the time. Witness was an accountant. If Mr Dudley had received dog registration feeß, there should be a duplicate receipt or block left in the book. The dog rates received in August and September were shown as having been received by Mr Dudley, but they are not accounted for in the receipt-book.

To Mr Nalder : The block rate-books he saw in the offioe were those for 1878, 1879, and 1880. He had taken particular, notice of them.

To Mr Holmes : The irregularities were found when the Mayor (Mr O. Smith) and witnets were in the office together.

To Mr Nalder : Mr Dudley had not started for Akaroa at the time. The block-book produced was a similar one to those ho saw for 1878, 1879, and 1880.

W. Fraser deposed that he was a momber of the Borough Council, and also of the Finance Committee. Messrs B. H. Mathews and W. B. May were his colleagues. By direotion of the Counoil the Oommittee made an investigation of the books of the Council, commencing on Jan. 8. They found several books missing. The rate-books for 1877, 1878, 1879, and 1880 were all missing. They were similar to the one produced. We wanted them to check the rate accounts, so as to see the amount of monies paid to the Treasurer. There was no other book kept, and if they got the blocks they could see what monies he had or had not acoounted for. Witness spoke to Mr Dudley the same evening, telling him he must find the books, as they must have them. Mr Dudley said he did not know where they were. He had looked in the offioe and could not find them. Witness went over on the morning of the 9bh, and Mr Dudley said he had not fount them. He Baid he had looked in the office and could not find them. On the 10th, after seeing Mr Dudley several times, we asked Mr Dudley to leave the office and we would search, when we found the rate-books for 1874, 1875, 1876, and 1880. We then examined the dog- tax receipts, and found that an amount of £46 10s had been received, and, according to the ledger account, only £37 10s had been accounted for. On those blocks there is no amount specified, but the Committee calculated each fee at 10s to July 1. After giving Mr Dudley the benefit of the amount paid in August and September, they found no record of the £9 10s. Had beon in the Council for four years and in the Finance Committee for two years or so. Mr Dudley bad not complained to him of losing any of the ratebooks, and no one had any interest in removing or destroying the rate-books but Mr Dudley. Witness had never audited tho books, but he had examined them occasionally. Mr Dudley attended meetings of the Finance Committee on Jan. 8, 9, and 10, but he has never attended any of them since.

To M<? Nalder : Mr Dudley Baid when ho was asked for tho books tbat he could not find them. He had never complained of the manner in which Mr Dudley had kept the books before these irregularities were discovered. In November, 1882, thero had been a balance-sheet produced at the Counoil, signed by the Auditors, and at that meoting signed by the Mayor. The irregularities were discovered on the 9tb in consequence of one of the Councillors having raised an objection to the balance-sheet. Mr Dudley has never been aoked to produce the rate books for 1877, 1878, and 1879 before. To Mr Holme* : Thera would he no object in destroying the rate-books after tho collection of the rate.

G. H. Blackwell doposod he had been Mayor in 1878, 1879, and 1880. Had seen the rate-books of thoso years. They were in charge of Mr Dudley. He was nevor authorised to destroy any of these books, nor did he complain that any of them were mi-sing. It was his duty to pay in all monies, dogrates, kc, into the bank once a week. Money received in September or August for dog fees should appear in tho books at tho samo timo. It iB not the duty of the Cork to tear any of tho blocks out of the b.-oke There aro evidently a good many blocks torn out of tho book produced, probably fifteen or twenty. This closed the case for the Council.

Mr M. Nalder submitted that the plaintiff had failed to prove a domand for tho books ; also, that Mr Dudley could not produce tho booka. He had already admitted th»t ho could not find the books, as he had left everything in tho offico whon sußuended. He admitted that the books had been kept in a careless state for a number of years, but that was no reason why a suspended officer should be called upon to produoo books. His Worship eaid from the evidence bofore him thero was a case for tho defendant to answer.

Me Nalder was about to put Mr Dudley in the box when Mr Holmes objected, remarking i hat this was a cose in whioh there could bo r.o fine, hence tho defendant could not bo examinod.

Mr Holmes subsequently did not wish to raise any objection to tho evidence of tho defendant, but his Worship said he could not allow of any irregularity of that kind, and quoted from the Act to show it. Mr Raider then submitted again to tho Beech that tho defendant had not a case to answor, as the plaintiff hud not proved that the defendant had been properly called upon. Ho callod no evidence.

Tbe Bench adjourned for twenty minutes, after whioh Mr Whitefoord Baked Mr Holmes if he wished tho amount of £9, which had been mentioned as deflioient in the dog-tax book, to be included in any order tho Bench might make. Mr Holmes said ho did not think it advisable at this stage to aak for this to be done.

Tho Magistrate aaid that the Bench had had some little difference a 9 to tho aspect of tho case, which was a serious ono in every respect to tho public, as well aa to the defendant. They had found that it would be impoasible to agree, consequently bad determined to adjourn. The Magistrates who

had sat with him, had, however, agreed that he Bhould point out to the defendant that according to the letters sent him by the Council he had not met the Counoil in the same spirit that the Council had evidently wished to impart. He had been very fairly asked to produce the books and to assist the Council in unravolling the mess into whioh the books had got through his own carelessness ; but instead of replying he had sent a letter simply referring them to his solicitor, although he was still an officer of the Council. They had accordingly determined to adjourn the hearing of the case for a fortnight, to see whether he would not in the meantime better his position, and furnish them with such information as he could. There was nothing in the letters from the Mayor to warrant such a proceeding, as that gentleman had written in a fair spirit throughout, and on his (defendant's) action and position to the Council during the next fortnight would depend the nature of the order they would make. If they did make an order it would bo that the defendant be called upon to show cause why a judgment Bhould not be given against him according to the Aot. He took it that was the nature of the order that Mr Holmes applied for.

Mr Holmes replied tbat that was in oc cordance with the law, and what he wished.

Mr Whitefoord hoped that defendant would consider the position and aot with discretion, as unless the Bench found that he met the Counoil in the proper spirit in the interim they would be compelled to call npon him to show cause why suoh an order as the Act provided should not be made. The letters would be retained in Court.

Mr Nalder remarked that as far as defendant was concerned he had acted since his suspension entirely under his, Mr Nalder's, instructions, and he was prepared to take the blame (if any) of the position assumed by Mr Dudley. Mr Whitefoord did not say that anyone was to blame, but he regretted the position assumed by the defendant.