K.B. Div.]

not that the tenant shall be entitled to this penalty, but "the person aggrieved." I think that a man who succeeds to property let out in weekly tenancies, during the currency of the period for which the water rate is levied, and who, by having his water cut off improperly, is prevented, or might be prevented, from being able to let his house, is a person aggrieved, and therefore I think the last point made by Mr. Courthope Munroe fails. I think the view taken by the magistrate was right, and there was an owner liable to pay the rate within the meaning of sect. 4, and therefore the water company were wrong in cutting off the water on the 19th Aug., and that this appeal should be dismissed.

RIDLEY, J.—I am of the same opinion and will add but a very few words. It occurs to me that the question arises in the following way: By the 74th section of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847 there is power given to the undertakers or the water company should any person supplied with water by them or liable as in that Act provided to pay the water rate, neglect to pay the water rate, to stop the water from going into the premises. I am not aware that there is any other power at all which the water company possesses of cutting off the water. At that time there was in the 72nd section of the same Act of 1847 a provision that the owners of houses not exceeding 101. rental should be liable to pay the water rates, and that was, therefore, the position with regard to the owner at that time. The owner of a house of less than 101. in rental value is liable to pay the water rate. Then came the Act of 1887, which limited the power which I have mentioned of cutting off the water in the way described in that section, and provided that it was not to be cut off where the water rate was payable by the owner. Then in all cases where the owner was to pay the water rate, the power of cutting off was taken away and a new state of things was brought into operation instead of it, which was not entirely to the detriment of the water companies because they obtained, instead of the right to cut off the water, the provision that the rate should be a charge on the dwelling-house in priority to all other charges affecting the premises. When the Act of 1907 was passed there was a section contained in it which enabled the water company or undertakers, if they should think proper so to determine, to say that where a house or building supplied with water is let to monthly or weekly tenants or tenants holding for any other period less than a quarter of a year, the owner instead of the occupier should pay the rate for the supply; and the Metropolitan Water Board accordingly passed a resolution under which, by virtue of that sect. 26, the owner of this property became liable to pay the water rate. Now it has been argued, or suggested in argument, that in this particular instance as the facts are found in the case, sect. 4 ceased to have an application to the case, and the owner did not become liable to pay the rate because the premises were vacant. Now, I do not agree with that argument. It appears to me to give rise to many difficulties which have been pointed out by Mr. Giveen and dwelt upon by my Lord in his judgment. I entirely fail to see how it can be made out that from time to time, from week to week, you might say, the character of the

[K.B. Div.

property is to be changed merely because there do not happen to be tenants in the property at the time. The facts found in this case are that the premises were in point of fact let on weekly tenancies by Le Grand whilst he was in possession and afterwards they were taken over by the respondent, Mr. Bibbey, for the purpose of again letting them ou weekly tenancies, and that his object in insisting on having vacant possession of the same was that he might be enabled to have the premises done up prior to reletting them. During such a period it appears to me that the property does not lose its character, and I am not prepared to accede to the argument that because the words" where the owner and not the occupier is liable by law" are the introductory words of the section, therefore there must be at that moment of time some actual occupier as distinguished from the owner. Although it be the fact that there were working men at that moment in possession of the premises, who were doing them up with a view to their repair in order that the premises might be occupied by weekly tenants, I think the Act still applies, and the result is there is a prohibition by law against the water company cutting off the water in such a case, and they are given, instead of that right, the substantial advantage of having a charge upon the dwellinghouse. That being so, I think they had no right in the present case to cut off the water as they did. I will say one word about what has been contended by Mr. Courthope Munroe with regard to vacant premises. They clearly did on the facts of this case, as it seems to me, proceed to cut off the water because the rate had not been paid, not because the premises were vacant-the reason in point of fact which is specified in sect. 74 of the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847. I do not think they were acting as they did because the premises were vacant. For this reason I am of the same opinion as my Lord.

CHANNELL, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think when the point is seen, it really is fairly clear and may be stated comparatively shortly. The only question before us is whether the water board have acted in contravention of the 4th section of the Act of 1887 in such a way as to incur the penalty provided by the 5th section of that Act. That is the only question we have to consider. That Act and the section in question was undoubtedly passed for the main purpose of protecting the tenants, but it deals, as some Acts of Parliament at any rate do, carefully with the rights of other people, and this Act deals carefully with the rights of the water board and of the owners as well as the tenants who were to be protected. The 4th section takes away the remedy which, but for that section, the water companies, and the water board now, would have of cutting off the supply as a remedy for the non-payment of water rate. It takes away that remedy for non-payment of water rate. In respect of what water rate does it take it away? It takes it away in respect of water rates for which the owner and not the occupier is liable by law-leaving out the cher parts of the section, that is enough. This water rate in respect of which, beyond all doubt, the water board did cut off the supply in this case was the rate for which the owner and not the occupier was, when the rate became due, clearly liable; there is no question

K.B. Div.]

about it. Therefore, that is a rate in respect of which this remedy is taken away, and, being taken away, the water board acted in contravention of the section. Personally I think the section does assume the existence both of an owner and of an occupier; but when you come to consider what effect you are to give to it, the material time clearly is the time at which the rate becomes due, because when the rate is due there are then certain remedies for it, including the charge upon the owner's property. It cannot possibly be said that that is done away with by somebody surrendering a lease during the time the premises become vacant. The charge still exists. The surrender could not put an end to it anyhow, and there is nothing in the section to suggest it does at all. Therefore, when you consider what the matter is, the thing becomes perfectly clear. Here, as my Lord has said, we decide nothing as to what would happen at the end of this quarter in respect of that rate; that is not before us. Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors: Walter Moon; George Kebbell.

Wednesday, March 22, 1911. (Before Lord ALVERSTONE, C.J., RIDLEY and CHANNELL, JJ.)

GREVILLE-SMITH (app.) v. TOMLIN (resp.) (a) Local government-District councillor-Paid clerk to joint hospital committee-Paid office under council-Local Government Act 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 46.

By an agreement made between the Corporation of the Borough of R. and the H. and I. Urban District Council, the Joint Hospital Committee was formed for the purpose of providing and maintaining hospitals for the use of the inhabitants of the borough and urban district, such committee consisting of twelve persons, six being appointed by the council of the borough, and six by the urban district council out of their own members respectively.

In 1898 the appellant was appointed by the committee their clerk, at a salary of 150l. per annum, which was paid out of the funds of the committee, which were derived inter alia from moneys paid by the borough and district council. On the 19th June 1910 the appellant still held the office of clerk, and on that date, being a councillor of the urban district council, he acted as chairman of the meeting of the council. Held, that the appellant held a "paid office under the district council," and so was dis qualified under sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894 from being a member or chairman of the urban district council.

CASE stated on an information laid by the respondent against the appellant, wherein it was alleged that the appellant did unlawfully act as chairman of the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council, he then holding a paid office under the urban district council contrary to sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894.

At the hearing the following facts were admitted or proved :

The appellant was elected a councillor of the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council in

(a) Reported by W. DE B. HERBERT, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

[K.B. DIV.

the county of Middlesex (hereinafter called and referred to as the district council) in the year 1907, and he was re-elected in 1910. The appellant was elected chairman of the council in 1908, 1909, and 1910, and he acted as such chairman at the meeting of the council held on the 19th July 1910.

By an agreement dated the 11th June 1895 and made between the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Richmond (Surrey) and the Heston and Islesworth Urban District Council (which was annexed to and formed part of the case), the borough of Richmond (Surrey) and the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Joint Isolation Hospital Committee (hereinafter referred to as the joint hospital committee) was formed for the purpose of providing and maintaining hospitals for infectious diseases for the use of the inhabitants of the borough and of the urban district. Prior to the agreement being sealed the Local Government Act 1894 had come into operation. By sect. 57 of that Act joint committees could be appointed by the corporation of a borough and of urban district councils.

By clauses 11 and 12 of the agreement it was provided that the joint hospital committee should consist of twelve persons, six being appointed by the council of the borough and six being appointed by the district council out of their own members respectively, and the borough council and the district council delegated all their powers in reference to the maintenance and management of and otherwise dealing with the hospitals to and to be carried out by the joint hospital committee.

The borough council appoints its members on the joint hospital committee annually in the month of November, and the district council appoints its members annually in the month of April.

The joint hospital committee employ a staff of officers for the management of their hospitals and for the purpose of carrying on the work in connection therewith. All such officers are appointed solely by, and their salaries are paid by, the joint hospital committee by cheques drawn by the joint hospital committee on the London and Provincial Bank. The manager of the Richmond branch of such bank is the treasurer of and is appointed by the joint hospital committee. Such treasurer and bank are not the treasurer or bank of the district council, and there is no privity between the district council and the treasurer and bank of the joint hospital committee, the treasurer being responsible to the joint hospital committee, and owing no duty to the district council as to the disposal of the funds of the joint hospital committee entrusted in his hands. It is the practice of the joint hospital committee to draw a cheque upon their treasurer upon their bank signed by the chairman presiding at, and two members of the committee present at, the meeting at which such cheques are ordered to be drawn.

The appellant was in 1898 appointed by the joint hospital committee as their salaried clerk, and in the year 1910 the salary attached to such office was 150 per annum. The appellant on the 19th July 1910 still held the office of clerk.

The district council were not consulted by the joint hospital committee in reference to the appointment of the appellant as such clerk, or as

K.B. Div.]

to the salary which should be paid to the appellant as such clerk. There was no minute in the books of the district council making, confirming, or approving of such appointment, and no cheque had ever been drawn by the district council in favour of the appellant for the payment of his salary as such clerk to the joint hospital committee.

The district council have never appointed, removed, or dismissed any officer or person in the employ of the joint hospital committee, but all officers and persons employed by the joint hospital committee are appointed and dismissed by the joint hospital committee.

The funds of the joint hospital committee are derived from (1) payments made for treatment of patients in the hospitals, (2) rents of surplus land, and also (3) moneys paid by the borough council and the district council on precepts sent annually by the joint hospital committee to the borough council and to the district council respectively. The amounts of the precepts are apportioned between the borough council and the district council in the proportions specified in clause 9 of the agreement dated the 11th June 1895.

The accounts of the joint hospital committee are audited by an auditor appointed by the Local Government Board. Such auditor is not the auditor appointed by the Local Government Board to audit the accounts of the district council, but is the auditor appointed by an order of the bcard to audit the accounts of authorities in the Surrey Audit District.

On the part of the respondent it was contended that the joint hospital committee was a mere committee of the district council, and the fact that six of its members were appointed by the council of the borough of Richmond made no difference, that the appellant was employed by the district council because the district council found part of the funds out of which expenses of the joint hospital committee were paid and appointed part of its members, and that the case was more or less governed by Crump v. Lewis (98 L. T. Rep. 864; (1908) 1 K. B. 858), and that the appellant held a paid office under the district council, and that in acting as chairman of such council he had violated the provisions of sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894.

On the part of the appellant it was contended that he was not a paid officer under the district council, with whom he had no contract of employment, and by whom he was neither appointed nor paid, and who could not dismiss him; that the joint hospital committee was not a committee of the district council witain the case of Crump v. Lewis (sup.); that the urban distress committee (unemployed workmen) referred to in that case was both in the Unemployed Workmen Act 1905 and the order of the Local Government Board known as the Urban Distress Committees (Unemployed Workmen) Order 1905 described as a committee of the council, and the salaries of the persons employed by such committee paid out of the moneys supplied by the council alone, of which it was by statute declared to be a committee of the council, but that the joint hospital committee was an independent authority appointed, paying and dismissing its own officers, and that the Local Government Board recognised it as an independent authority

were

[K.B. DIV.

and appointed an auditor to audit the accounts of the joint hospital committee, an auditor different from the auditor appointed to audit the accounts of the district council; that sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894 was a penal section and must be construed strictly; that the cases of Aslatt v. Corporation of Southampton (43 L. T. Rep. 464; 16 Ch. Div. 143) and Reg. v. Rawlins (15 Q. B. Div. 382) showed that the alleged disqualification must be within the exact wording of the section; that the appellant was, as in the case of Reg. v. Rawlins, paid out of a fund under the exclusive control of the authority who appointed him, a fund entirely separate from and not identified with any fund under the control of the district council, and entirely separated from the district fund and borough fund and subject to the disposition of a different and separate authority; that the holding of the office of clerk to the joint hospital committee, for the reasons herein set forth, does not come within the terms or meaning of sect. 46; that in the case of non-payment of his salary the appellant could not sue either the borough council or the district council, as his yearly salary exceeded the amount of 50l., and he had no contract with or appointment by either the borough council or the district council under their seals; that neither the borough council [nor the district council could put an end to the agreement of the 11th June 1895 without the mutual consent of both bodies; that there always were six members of the joint hospital committee in office; and that if one of the two local authorities refused or neglected to appoint its six members, that the remaining members of the joint hospital, committee could still carry on the hospitals and that both the borough council and the district council would be obliged to contribute their quota to the expenses so incurred.

It was also proved or admitted before the justices that the appellant, before acting as a councillor, took the opinion of counsel as to whether he was disqualified and was advised he was not.

The justices were of opinion that as clause 14 of the agreement of the 11th June provided for the determination of such agreement by mutual consent it was possible for the appellant, who is chairman and a member of the council, to be in a position to prevent the abolition of the joint hospital committee of which he is clerk.

They gave judgment as follows:

We have considered this case with great care, and with a considerable amount of regret we find that there has been a breach of the Act, and that Mr. Greville Smith has occupied a position which can be considered as directly or indirectly in the pay of the district council. But we consider he did what he could he did everything in his power to render himself free from liability-and we consider a fine of 18. will meet the penalty. No order as to costs.

The question for the opinion of the court was: Does the appellant hold a paid office under the district council within the meaning of sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894 ?

The agreement above referred to was as follows:

Articles of agreement made the 11th day of June 1895 between the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Richmond (Surrey), acting by the council as the sanitary authority for the urban sanitary

K.B. Div.]

district of the said borough (hereinafter referred to as the corporation), of the one part and the Heston and Isleworth Urban District Council, being the sanitary authority for the urban sanitary district of Heston and Isleworth, in the county of Middlesex (hereinafter referred to as the district council), of the other part.

Whereas the district council are owners of a certain piece of land containing four acres or thereabouts, and situate at Dockwell, in the parish of Heston, in their said district, and of the hospital and other buildings and structures erected on such piece of land and known as Dockwell Hospital, and of various fittings, furniture, appliances, and things used or provided for the purposes of or in connection with the said hospital. And whereas an offer for the sale of a certain other piece of land containing 9 acres or thereabouts, and situate at Mogden, in the parish of Isleworth (hereinafter referred to as the new hospital site), has been made to the corporation and the district council. And whereas the parties hereto are desirous of combining for the provision of a common hospital for fever and other infectious, contagious, and epidemic diseases, and for the constitution of the said hospital at Dockwell as a smallpox hospital for the use of inhabitants of their respective districts, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and stipulations hereinafter contained, now therefore it is hereby agreed and declared by and between the parties hereto by virtue of the 131st and 285th sections of the Public Health Act 1875, and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf as follows, that is to say:

1. The corporation and the district council (hereinafter called the authorities) shall combine, and are hereby combined, for the purpose of providing and maintaining such hospitals as herein mentioned.

2. The hospitals to be so provided shall be the hospital (hereinafter referred to as the new hospital) to be erected on the new hospital site and the Dockwell Hospital aforesaid.

3. The authorities shall so soon as is practicable after the execution of this agreement respectively apply for and use their best endeavours to obtain the sanction of the Local Government Board to the raising of loans of such amounts as the joint committee hereinafter mentioned shall (subject to the provisions of this agreement) determine to be necessary for the purpose of defraying the cost of purchasing the new hospital site, and of erecting a hospital on such site, and providing all necessary permanent appurtenances, fittings, furniture, and appliances for such hospital.

4. If the sanction of the Local Government Board shall be obtained to the raising of loans for the purposes aforesaid, the authorities, acting by the joint committee, shall forthwith use their best endeavours to acquire a new hospital site.

5. When the new hospital site shall have been aequired, it shall be held, and also all buildings and structures erected thereon, and the new hospital, when erected, and also the Dockwell Hospital, and the existing fittings, furniture, and appliances thereof-upon trust for the authorities jointly for the purposes of this agreement, and for the use of the inhabitants of the districts of both authorities. And the district council shall, if and when requested to do so by the corporation and at the expense of the corporation, take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents for effectually vesting the four acres of land forming the Dockwell property in the authorities jointly.

6. In consideration of the interest acquired by the corporation in the said hospitals the corporation shall, out of the said loan to be raised by them, pay the sum of 4000l. or an amount equal to the sum which shall have been paid for the purchase of the new hospital site, whichever shall be the less, and shall also pay the amount of tenants' valuation or compensation (if any), and of the legal and other expenses of and incidental to

[K.B. Div.

the purchase of such site, and of and incidental to this agreement.

7. The authorities shall, with all practicable speed after the acquisition of the new hospital site, erect thereon a hospital with all necessary and proper appurtenances, and shall fit up and furnish the same in a proper manner for use as an isolation hospital for fever and other infectious, contagious, or epidemic diseases.

8. The authorities shall maintain the new hospital as a hospital for fever and other infectious, contagious, or epidemic diseases, and the Dock well Hospital as a smallpox hospital, or shall, by mutual consent on the recommendation of the joint committee hereinafter mentioned, cause such hospital to be enlarged, improved, or altered as may from time to time appear necessary or desirable, and shall employ a sufficient staff and make all necessary and proper provision for the treatment of the sick therein.

9. The authorities shall defray the expenses of the erection, fitting, and furnishing of the new hospital, and of maintaining, enlarging, improving, and altering the said hospitals, and the cost of the staff of each hospital and the treatment of the sick therein, and of all other expenses which shall be incurred by them or (with their approval) by the joint committee under this agreement (save as herein otherwise provided), in proportion to the assessable values of their respective districts ascertained as hereinafter directed.

10. For the purposes of this agreement, the assessable values of the said districts shall be ascertained in each year prospectively, and shall be taken to be the values of the rateable property therein on which general district rates, if made under the Public Health Act 1875 on the 25th day of March, would be assessed.

11. The selection of plans for and the superintendence of the execution of such contracts as shall be entered into by the authorities for the erection of a new hospital and the maintenance and management of and otherwise dealing with both hospitals, shall be delegated to and carried out by a joint committee of twelve persons, of whom six shall be appointed by the corporation out of the council of the borough and six shall be appointed by the district council out of their own members.

12. The authorities shall respectively appoint their members of the joint committee in the first instance within twenty-one days after the execution by them of this agreement, and thereafter annually at their general meeting, and shall from time to time fill up any casual vacancies which may occur from a member ceasing to be a member of the authority that appointed him, or from death, resignation, or otherwise, by appointing another member out of the council of the borough or out of the members of the district council in respect of each vacancy as the case may be.

13. The meetings of the joint committee shall be held and their proceedings conducted in the manner provided by the rules with respect to meetings and proceedings of committees of local authorities and joint boards by the second part of the 1st schedule of the Public Health Act 1875, except so far as those rules may be inconsistent with any of the provisions of this agreement. The joint committee shall, subject to the approval of the authorities, select a name for the new hospital, but the words "Hounslow" or "Richmond" shall not be used as part of such name, nor shall the name "Dockwell be altered or added to.

14. This agreement shall not be determined except by the mutual consent of both parties.

15. If any dispute not otherwise provided for shall arise between the authorities with respect to this agreement or the construction thereof, or anything done in pursuance thereof or otherwise in relation to the said hospitals, the same shall be referred to arbitration in the manner provided by the Arbitration Act 1889.

16. Provided always, and it is hereby agreed and declared, that if the Local Government Board shall refuse to sanction the said proposed loans or either of

K.B. Div.]

them, or if the purchase of the new hospital site for a sum not exceeding £4000 cannot be carried out, these presents shall (except as to any expenses which shall have been already incurred and which expenses shall, so far as the district council is concerned, be paid in any event by the corporation) be void and of no effect.

In witness whereof the corporation and the district council have respectively hereunto set their common seals the day and year first above mentio ned.

By sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894:

(1) A person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member or chairman of a council of a parish or of a district other than a borough or of a board of guardians if he (d) holds any paid office under the parish council or district council or board of guardians, as the case may be .; (8) If any person acts when disqualified, or votes when prohibited under this section, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

C. A. Russell, K.C. and Morton Smith for the appellant. The clerk to a joint hospital committee such as this does not hold any paid office under the district council within sect. 46 of the Local Government Act 1894. The case of Crump v. Lewis (98 L. T. Rep. 864; (1908) 1 K. B. 858) has no application to the present case, for there the committee was a committee of the district council, but this joint committee is quite independent. It is not a committee of the borough council or of the district council. They also referred to

Reg. v. Rawlins, 15 Q. B. Div. 382.

A. J. Lawrie for the respondent.-Sect. 285 of the Public Health Act 1875 provides that all moneys which a local authority agrees to contribute towards expenses authorised by that section -and the agreement for this joint committee was made under the powers of that section-" shall be deemed to be expenses incurred by them in the execution of works within their district." Therefore the money contributed by the district council which goes to make up the salary of the applicant is just as much salary paid by the district council as if the appellant was actually their servant. This case illustrates the mischief which is aimed at by sect. 46, for the appellant's interests as salaried clerk to the joint committee might conflict with his position as chairman of the district council.

C. A. Russell in reply.

Lord ALVERSTONE, C.J.-I can only say, speaking for myself, that I share the feeling of regret expressed by the justices at being compelled to come to the decision they did. We are dealing with a case where most unquestionably there are grounds for thinking the gentleman who is attacked had not the slightest intention of departing from the law. I take it from Mr. Russell that he pursued the matter carefully and was advised that he was not disqualified. I say under these circumstances there is not the slightest suggestion of anything wrong, and one is obliged to take the view that his position is one of a mistake. I will not say that after the arguments I have any doubt on the matter, for I have considered them very carefully. Now, the language of the Act, sect. 46 (1), is in general terms: "Holds any paid office under the parish council or district council or board MAG. CAS.-VOL. XXV.

K.B. DIV.

of guardians, as the case may be." In the course of these arguments two other provisions have been mentioned, one in the schedule to the Act and the other from the Municipal Corporations Act. Different language has been used, but they do not enable me to come to the conclusion that there is any special or any limited construction put upon this section, and I must construe this section with reference to the mischief that was probably contemplated by the Legislature and the state of circumstances which arose. Mr. Greville-Smith holds office as clerk to the joint committee. The agreement under which the joint committee exists is the agreement that was scheduled to the case, and the agreement purports to be made on the face of it under the powers of the 131st and 285th sections of the Public Health Act 1875 and all other powers enabling them on that behalf. Now, it cannot be suggested that there is any statutory authority for the constitution of this particular board. The way in which it comes into existence is by virtue of the powers under sects. 131 and 285 of the Public Health Act 1875, which enables local authorities to provide for the use of the inhabitants of their districts hospitals for the reception of the sick, and for that purpose may combine to provide a common hospital, and the scheme of this agreement which is entered into in pursuance of these general powers is that the local authorities each appoint six members who hold office for a certain time, and the twelve become the authority for carrying out the work of providing for the hospital. I take it from Mr. Russell that all that appears as to the appointment of Mr. Greville-Smith was a minute of the committee appointing him their clerk. The way in which the funds are provided is according to value from the two constituent authorities amounting to 36007., 20007. coming from Richmond and 13881. from Isleworth, and receipts from other sources not a very large amount, 1771. altogether. I do not think the small amount of the receipts from other sources would have made any difference if we could have seen, as in Reg. v. Rawling, what I may call a separate fund arising from many different sources. I have not based my judgment on the fact that the amounts are small from the patients, but we must look for the purpose of construing this section at what is the real position of these twelve gentlemen; they are six from one and six from the other and represent the larger authority who appoint them, and so far as the responsibility is concerned, they act as agents for the two authorities in carrying out the joint work which the two authorities have undertaken. They are not by statute a corporation, but they are delegated agents from year to year of their respective authorities who have appointed them to do the work. There is a provision in the agreement to which our attention has been called by Mr. Lawrie, which is, that the agreement cannot be determined except by the mutual agreement of both parties. Under these circumstances is it right to hold that the clerk to this joint committee holds a paid office under the district council? I have come to the conclusion that he does. If we consider that the office of clerk to the com. mittee is an office created by and established for the work of the district council together with the other borough, and you are to consider that it is paid by funds coming from the district council,

D