CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1230, 3 May 1864, Page 5

CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL.

Monday, 2nd May. The Council met at the usual hour. Present—Messrs. E. Bishop, C. W. Bishop, Bailey, Burnell, Barnard and Pavitt. In the absence of the chairman Mr. E. B. Bishop took the chair. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following letters and papers were read: — Letter from the Provincial Engineer stating that the iron work for the Papanui bridge had been sent out m a vessel which left England about the 20th March, and might be expected here early in July The letter further stated that Sir Charles Fox had rejected a great portion of the iron-work of the bridge on account of some defects in its construction, and recommended that a fine should be imposed on the contractor, us the said defects arose entirely from mis-management on his part. Some discussion ensued upon this communication, ultimately it was decided that no steps could be taken in the matter until the arrival of the ironwork. The opinion of Mr. Moorhouse ori some of the by-laws was read, but the further consideration of it was deferred until a fuller meeting of the Council should assemble. The report of the Sub-Committee appointed to inspect the condition of the Triangle was read. It announced that the sanatory arrangements in that locality were most defective. The " right of way " was described as being in a most disgracefnl state. The report recommended the immediate adoption of measures calculated to obviate the evils complained of, and concluded by expressing tie hope that the time was not far off when a cleansing rate would be imposed. The report having been read, and its reception moved by Mr. C. W. Bishop, Mr. Barnard moved " that the report should be adopted, and instructions given to the Inspector of Nuisances to carry out the recommendations of the Committee as far as possible." If the report was to be merely received and then shelved, the time and labour bestowed upon the work by the Committee, in the discharge of their very unpleasant duty, would be entirely thrown away. The motion having been seconded, Mr. E. B. Bishop suggested that the adoption of the report should be deferred for the consideration of a fuller meeting. In deference to the suggestion of Mr. Bishop, Mr. Barnard consented to withdraw his motion, and the report was therefore merely received. The report of the City Snrveyor was read and considered. It did not contain any suggestions of public interest. The report of the Inspector was read. It pointed out the existence of several nuisances, and recommended measures for the abatement of them. Some further routine business was transacted, and the Council adjourned.