HAMPSTEAD TOWN BOARD.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXI, Issue 7913, 29 September 1909, Page 4

HAMPSTEAD TOWN BOARD.

The/: ordinary meeting of the Hampstead Town Board was held last evening. , Present : Commissioners W s . Thompson! (m the chair), A. Topping, S. Wilson, W. Cunningham, R. Lewis, and T^O'Carroll. |

An apology for absence, was received from Commissioner G. W. Andrews. 5 The motion empowering the Board to borrow from its bank, by way of overdraft, a sum of £200, was con!firmed.

An opinion from the Board's solicitor with regard to water by-laws was received, and it was resolved to hold a special meeting of the Board on the last Tuesday of next month to consider the matter of framing water by-laws for, district. The Otautau Town Board again wrote with reference to hotel license fees, stating that the matter had been considered by the Wallace Licensing Bench' on the Otautau Board's representation, with ; the. following result:: Pursuant to Section 33 of the Town Board's Act, 1908, licensed hotelkeepers are obliged to pay an annual fee of £40 as m the case of a borough.

It was stated by the chairman that the matter was of no concern to Hampstead, seeing that no licensed houses existed there. ' The following transfers were approved of :' Lot 29, D.P. 187, from G. H. Buchanan to G. L. Sandrey ; from F. Ferriman to Mrs Mary Reddecliffe, his property on Wakanui road ; Lot 40; D.P. 40, from E. E. Ferriman to Gabez William Ramsey ; and Lot 15, 1995-14880, containing 32 perches, from' H: Margett to O. Beach. Mr O'Carroll reported that he had visited Wellington street on the day appointed by the Board to make an inspection, but the only members present besides himself were Messrs Lewis and Andrews, and, as more members of the Board were not' present, they did not feel justified m coming to any definite conclusion ; but he was of the opinion that Mr Andrew's property should be acquired by the Board, with the object of widening the street. He moved that the Board should meet at 5.30 next evening m Wellington street to make a further inspection.—This was seconded and carried. A ratepayer wrote thanking the Board for the kind consideration giveii to his application for employment.— Received. Several applications were received for the position of sanitary inspector; and, on a ballot being taken, Mr J. Dalley was appointed. Mr Armstrong was appointed ranger. . The ranger reported, giving the dates upon which he had been through the district, and the report was adopted, i The inspector reported on the existence, during the month, of nuisances on two properties. One of these had been attended to, and m the other* case a notice had been served. Reference was made to the unsatisfactory system of dealing with drainage, and; f the opinion was expressed that sooner or later the Board would have to adopt some proper system.—Adopted. The foreman reported at length on the work done during the month, which had been largely confined to Bridge street, and on several works which needed attention.

Mr O'Oarroll was inclined to think

that the Board had gone a little too far m road works. He quite agreed with what had been done m Jones's road, but held a different view with regard to Bridge street. The chairman said the work' was a necessary one, and Mr O'Carroll had voted m favour of it. He believed himself, after starting a work, m completing it. Mr O'Carroll said he was absent when the work was authorised.

The chairman : "Then, Mr O'Car roll, you should not, question what was done m your absence." : Mr Lewis agreed with Mr o'Carroll. He approved 'of the work done m Jones's road, but he could not see the necessity for the repairs to Bridge street. He did not understand that the latter work was to be done. It seemed to him that the Works Committee had taken too much upon themselves.

The chairman said the members of the Board authorised the completion of the road to the bridge. He (Mr Thompson) had not authorised the. foreman to begin the work, but he did instruct the foreman to finish it. He took exception to Mr o'Carroll going to the foreman and telling him that the work had not been authorised. He hoped that m future when works were authorised the Works Committee would see that they were carried out. Mr Wilson favoured' a policy under which money would be spent with some lasting benefit, rather than that of spending money m dribs and drabs. Mr O'Oarroll asked if some of the ratepayers were not entitled to have the ditches around their places cleaned out.

The chairman said one of the chief complaints of the ratepayers when the meeting was held some time ago was

that the Board could show nothing for its expenditure, but this impression would be removed by what had been done m Jones and Bridge roads. He would like the meeting to say what should be done further with Bridge

road. His own impression was that the work should be continued to the bridge. Mr O'Carroll was m favour of going on with the work now that it had been started, and finishing it. Mr Wilson'favoured taking the road beyond the bridge, and referred to the absence of proper drainage after the bridge had been crossed. As a means for getting to the cemetery, the work was necessary. He would move that Bridge street be graded, and that the footpath be put m order <to Foreman's corner. The chairman seconded, saying that he quite agreed'with the mover. If £15 or £20 would finish the road right through it would be money well spent, and the ratepayers along that road were as much entitled to consideration as any other ratepayers m Hampstead. The motion was lost, Mr O'Carroll then moved that the work be completed to the bridge, and that the road to ,this point be shingled. —This was seconded and carried. The foreman was instructed to have certain improvements made with regard to drainage at Porter's and Cram's. The clerk, m reply to a question from Mr O'Carroll, stated that all instructions to the foreman should go through the clerk. The chairman said he had never given Mr Bright any instructions without consulting other members of the Board, and he wished the Board to be quite clear on this point. It was resolved to notify the owner of certain horses that he must discon.tinue allowing his horses to make use of the footpath m Bridge street, or legal proceedings would be taken. Accounts amounting to £86 18s lOd were passed for payment, and this concluded the business.