37

I.—2a

In Regina v. Gloucester (5 Q.B. 862) the writ was granted, though the individual entitled to payment of the fees was the applicant for the writ. It was not said there that he should sue. In Regina v. the London and Northwestern Railway Company (G5 L.J. 2), though the prerogative writ was allowed, it was said that ordinarily it would not be granted where there was another sufficient remedy, and that the proper remedy in the case should have been an action at the suit of the Postmaster-General for the non-performance of the statutory duty, with a claim for that kind of mandamus which can be claimed in an ordinary action. The statute was one directing a railway company to provide certain facilities for the carriage of mails. As the Postmaster-General is the carrier of all mails, the duty was one owing to him. In the present case no special fund is created out of which these expenses are to be paid. Moneys are, by the Counties Act, to be paid to the county fund, and out of that fund all moneys are to be paid. The license-fees, though payable to the local bodies, are primarily the fund for the payment of these expenses ; but the local bodies' responsibility is not limited to the fees. The ground of the decision in Addison v. Preston supra does not, therefore, exist here. There, as already noticed, it was held that the plaintiff could not sue for his salary because such salary was payable out of a particular fund, and not payable by the corporate body absolutely—that is, out of any of its funds. What is deficient in the plaintiff's case here is that he is unable to invoke any statutory provisions creating a liability to him—at any rate, a debt or oontract and liability. If an action had been maintained by the plaintiff, I think he could have recovered only such costs and expenses as he had reasonably incurred. The plaintiff cannot in this action claim a prerogative writ of mandamus, but only that kind of mandamus which is olaimable in an ordinary action, and if a plaintiff cannot maintain an ordinary action he cannot claim a mandamus of that kind. Therefore, my answer to the first question is that, though the Council is the controlling local authority, an action, if maintainable, would be against the corporate body of the county. As to the second question, limiting my answer to the claim of the plaintiff, I answer it in the negative. As to other expenses and costs, such as to Committee members' travelling-expenses, they perhaps could sue the county : that question is not raised in this case. As I understood at the argument, I was only to give an opinion as to whether, if the plaintiff could sue, he could recover expenses thrown away by his wilful misconduct. As I think he cannot sue at all, the question does not arise. It seems, however, impossible to suppose that if the plaintiff could sue he could recover expenses of such proceedings. The case might be different if the expenses were only of proceedings which, by reason of mistake either in his ministerial or judicial action, had been declared invalid.

EXHIBIT No. 20. [Extract from the Wairarapa Leader.] Licensing Election Expenses. At the meeting of the Wairarapa South County Council on Thursday last the Council went into committee, and for what ? In order to prevent the public from knowing their contemptible actions. They presumably were considering the Returning Officer, and his expenses for the licensing election for the year 1897. Our representative presented himself at the meeting as usual, but was greeted by a chorus of "We are in committee." And as to those expenses, we have endeavoured on several occasions to get from the County Clerk (Mr. H. H. Wolters) the expenses of the 1894 election, but we were put off from time to time, he stating he was too busy. Being pressed, he at last positively declined to give us the returns, and we have sought the information elsewhere. Our readers will not wonder at the Clerk's refusal when they see the figures, which we now give. The expenses of 1894, under Mr. Hutchison, S.M., amounted to £189 9s. 2d. In 1897, under Mr. Armstrong, they only amounted to £150 3s. 6d., showing that Mr. Armstrong conducted the election for £39 ss. Bd., or, in round numbers, £40 less than the Stipendiary Magistrate. The Stipendiary Magistrate had facilities that were denied Mr. Armstrong, and yet the fact remains that the conduot of the election was faultless, and the cost £40 less than on the former occasion. We feel sure the ratepayers will feel grateful to Mr. Armstrong for keeping the expenses down as he has done. Our readers, as sensible men and women, fully understand all the fuss and bother over this election in the precincts of the County Council chambers.

EXHIBIT No. 31. Sir,— " The Knoll," Peatherston, 30th November, 1896. I again, for the third time, tender you my nomination, together with the £10 deposit. There is ample time yet for you to accept it if you choose to do so, seeing that it was twice tendered you before the legal closing time—viz., 5 p.m. on the 27th. You require no clause in the Act for you to amend your error. The conduct of the election rests with you, and your duty is to act as an S.M., and administer justice in the matter, not to favour any one side. I have, &c, Coleman Phillips. p.S.—You have practically ruined my chance of election now, as everybody thinks me out of the field. I shall hold you responsible for all my expenses, and also in damages. Mr. Adam Armstrong, Beturning Officer, Wairarapa Electorate.

EXHIBIT No. 22. Dear Sir, — Carterton, 20th November, 1897. Mr. Coleman Phillips, in his evidence yesterday before the Public Petitions Committee, in support of hia petition, made use of the following words, viz. : " That Mr. Hornsby had told him that Mr. Armstrong had, after he was appointed Returning Officer, canvassed for subscriptions to defray his (Mr. Hornsby's) election expenses." Kindly let me know if this statement is correot. Yours faithfully, J. T. M. Hornsby, Esq., New Zealand Times, Wellington. A. Armstrong. The statement, if made, was absolutely false.— J. T. M. Hornsby.—22nd November, 1897 i

Having been asked to state what I know of the private character of Mr. Adam Armstrong, I have pleasure in stating that I believe him to be moral in his life and temperate in his habits. Carterton, 27th November, 1897. W. Ballachey, Vicar of Carterton.

I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Adam Armstrong for a period of fourteen years, during which time I have found him to be honest and upright in all his business dealings, and both able and willing to pay his debts and meet his engagements, whether debts of honour or otherwise. I also know him to be of good moral oharacter, and that he has earned the respect of all those who are intimate with him, despite the faot that his brusqueness of manner and efforts to expose anything underhand or dishonest has caused certain members of the community to circulate discreditable reports concerning him. Carterton, 29th November, 1897. James Stevens, J.P.

I was chairman of the Liberal Association at the time of the last general election, and still fill the position. I beg to certify that Mr. A. Armstrong, after the day of his appointment as Returning Officer, took no part in and did not attend Mr. Hornsby's committee meetings. As to the canard about Mr. Armstrong being a candidate, I can only say that his name was never considered by the Liberal party, or even suggested. William TJdy.