COUNCILLORS FINED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17345, 27 September 1924, Page 1

COUNCILLORS FINED.

AN ILLEGAL DECISION. (Special to tho “Star.”) MASTER-TON, September 26. Tn tho Supreme Court at Masterton to-day before Mr Justice MacGregor, the case was proceeded with of Controller and Auditor-General versus C. Pragnell and eleven others, councillors and ex-councillors of the Masterton Borough Council. The claim was for a penalty of £IOO each for allegedly permitting loan money fo be expended in 1.922 for a purpose other than that for which it i*as borrowed. Atr Jordan, one of the defendants, who appeared for all the defendants, said that tho special loan account was in credit and the- ordinary account was in debit. The special loan money was not needed for some time and £2500 from that account was transferred temporarily to the other account in order to save interest. His Honor; Were tho councillors aware that they were doing something illegal. Air Jordan : We must assume that the councillors were acting in what they considered were the best interests of the ratepayers. It seemed to him that the ends of justice would have been met by a tag. He considered it harsh that men should be prosecuted for doing what they considered to be in the public interest. Mr Biss, who prosecuted, said the case was brought by the Audit Department so til at tho fullest publicity might be given to the statute, so that local bodies might realise the importance of the law and the public might

have the fullest confidence in the statute being observed. His Honor said the object of the councillors was a laudable one, as it was done to reduce interest. At the same time, it was an illegal act. The councillors knew they should have obtained an Order-in-Council to authorise the transferring of the moneys. They knew this was necessary t but did not apply for the consent as the process of securing an Order-in-Council was lengthy. It might seem hard on the gentlemen to be mulcted in damages, but he felt that he must inflict a fine of £5 each on those concerned. With regard to costs, no preparation had been made for the trial and he would only allow costs for issuing writ and £5 5s for solicitor’s fee.