COUNTY COUNCIL BALANCESHEET.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12720, 15 August 1919, Page 5

COUNTY COUNCIL BALANCESHEET.

CHARGE OF SUPPRESSING INFORMATION. FINE INFLICTED. A unique case, in which Richard Evans, chairman of the Waipara County Council, was charged with failing to publish the yearly balance-sheet of the council within ten days after the receipt of same, was heard before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. The defendant was also charged with failing to include in tho balance-sheet exceptions taken by the Auditor-Gen-eral. Mr S. G- Raymond, Iv.C., appeared for the Audit Department, and Mr Harper appeared for the defendant. In a statement made Cosmo Augustus Ralston, audit _ inspector for tho North Canterbury district, said that he examined the council’s accounts for the year ending March 31, 1918. He sent the accounts to the. Auditor-General with a memorandum pointing out that certain loan money had been improperly paid into the county fund account instead of being kept ixi a separate bank account. He further pointed out that the county was paying interest on some _ unpaid purchase money for land, which practice is held to he illegal by tho Auditor-General. The bal-ance-sheet was returned on August 19. 1918, with the two referred to. Ho went to Waikari in January, 1919, to inspect the accounts for the half-year ending September 30, 1918. During the inspection he asked for tho original balance-sheet for March 31. The clerk could not find it in the office, ho was referred to the printed copy. Aueri questioned the clerk said he did not think it was necessary to publish the exceptions. Ralston notified the Audit Office accordingly. H© also wrote a letter to the Crown solicitor containing tho following notes from the council's minute hook:— “Minutes, August 31, 1918—The bal-ance-sheet-for the year ending March 31, signed as correct by the AuditorGeneral, was received. The clerk was instructed to have it printed and posted to each ratepayer. September 5, 1912.—1t was carried that, the publication of the balance-sheet, provided by law, was unnecessarily expensive, and that application be made to the Minister of Finance for a wrrant prescribing some other means of publicationOctober 26, 1912.—Th0 Minister of Internal Affairs wrote regretting that he could not comply with the council’s request ro publication of tho balancesheet- It was resolved that the County take the responsibility in not complying with the Counties Act.” Mr Harper entered a plea of guilty. He stated that tho reason a printed copy of the balance-sheet was sent to each ratepayer was that it cost only £6 whereas it cost £lB for publication in a newspaper. There was provision made in the Public Revenues Act for application to bo made to the AuditorGeneral to have a balance-sheet published in a different manner. /When his firm was notified the position was explained to the Auditor-General. Mr Raymond said that the non-publi-cation of the exceptions- created a breach of Section 136 of the Counties Act, which required that a balancesheet should ho published in a newspaper circulating in that particular county for the protection of the public and the information of ratepayers. The document was false. It was falsified in tho sense that there had been eliminated what tho Department thought should bo published. With regard to the method of publication. Section 3 of the Counties Act required publication in a newspaper. In Section 124 o? the Public Revenues Act another method was provided for whereby publication in a newspaper could be dispensed with- The council'took the responsibility of creating a breach of the Act. The Department took a serious view of this breach, R.chard Evans said he was chairman of the council since 1914. Since 1913 the balance-sheets had been printed and sent to ratepayers. . No exception had previously been taken to this course. He did not know that the loan money should have been kept in a; separate account. It was money borrowed for work carried out on the Hunmui bridgeHis Worship said that the latter charge was the more serious charge. The council had suppressed certain factsAir Raymond. agreed to withdraw the first charge. , . Ou the second charge a fine of 40s with costs was imposed. i