MAYOR OF TE KUITI.

Waipa Post, Volume XXI, Issue 1279, 10 August 1922, Page 5

MAYOR OF TE KUITI.

RECENT PROSECUTION SUCCEEDS.

A NOMINAL PENALTY,

Reserved decision in an important case was delivered by Mr F. W. Platts, .S.M., at Te Kuiti yesterday, concerning charges against Hubert Hine, Mayor, on ten counts under section 40 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920, that he did as Mayor whilst incapacitated from holding office by reiason of being concerned or .interested in a contract with the council to the value of £37 ssi 2d, which amount was owing to him when he took office. Mr Hine had resigned the position of borough solicitor before he was elected Mayor in April, 1921. When he was elected the sum of £37 5s 2d was owing to him for services! as solicitor. This sum was paid after he todk office. The Audit Department, which instituted the charges, contended that the fact that the’ sum was owing to defendant when he took office as Mayor made him concerned or interested in a contract with the council within the meaning of the Act. After lengthy consrideration of legal authorities, the magistrate held that defendant at the time of his election was concerned or interested in a contrlact under which he had previously rendered his professional services'. Defendant was therefore incapable of being elected, or being Mayor under section 41. The penalty for acting as Mayor whilst so incapacitated was fifty pounds for each offence. At the hearing counsel for the prosecution had stated that the Audit Office did not any moral turpitude on defendant’s part, and said' the Aud-itor-General had instituted proceedings because he was 1 compelled to by the Act. The decision concludes : “ Defendant is a man of acknowledged integrity, who, at considerable sacrifice of personal interests, undertook a'public duty asi Mayor of Te Kuiti at a critical time in the history of the borough, but, unfortunately for the borough was incapable of being elected owing to a provision of the Municipal Corporation Act, as ’ to which there are' conflicting authoritative decisions. It will therefore, be sufficient if defendant is merely convicted and ordered to pay the costal of the Court, 9® and solicitors’ fee in each case.” At the hearing Mr A. Patterson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. D. Vernon for defendant.