THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 73, 27 March 1900, Page 5

THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD

THE SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSf MENT. MATTER TO GO BEFORE THE I WARDEN. I A special meeting of the Thames j Drainage Board was held this morni ing to hear appeals against supplejmentary assessments. " There were ! present Mr H. A. Gordon (Chairman), and Messrs G. S. Tussling, S. -Hesketh, .1. Friar Clarke, and ,J. Gray. Mr C. J. Tunks (Jackson and Russell) was present representing the, New Moanataiari G.M. Company and the May Queen (Hauraki), Limited. About ten days ago a supplementary estimate was made by the Board to raise a sum of £1500' which, together with the original assessment, would provide for the sum of £550.0, which the Thames-Hatiraki have offered to do the pumping at the Big Pump and Thames-Hauraki Pump for. The, clerk read a number of letters appealing against the supplementary estimates. , Mr S. Severin Sorenson was present as attorney of the Kuranui-Caledonian G.M. Company. In a letter he said that he felt aggrieved at the supplementary assessment made by the Board, and the assessment was made without Jegal authority or power; that the May- Queen.'and ThamesIlauraki were assessed too low; that the Kuriunu-Caleclonia.il is not benefited by the pumping operations of the lhames-Hauraki Goldfields, Limited, for which apparently the■> supplementary assessment has been made. The May Queen objected ;to the assessment for contribution in respect of the land held by it within the drainage area in the sum of £495 on the ground that the assessment was too high, taking into consideration the fact that the company was now expending the sum of £ 300 per annum in pumping with its own pump, in addition to the amount for which the company is liable under the original assessment, without which expenditure and use of its own pumps the company would be unable to carry on'its liiining1 operations. •. The Moanataiari Company appealed against their assessment of. £202 10/, on the ground that, it was :too high," as the area of the ground.held,by the ' company had not been enlarged, nor ~ the proportionate depth and extent of its workings been extended, nor the amount .of benefit derived from'the ; yield of gold or other materials been ' increased. -The Thames-Hauraki Goldfields,' Limited, also appealed against the ,: assessment by its attorney, Mr S. Hes-:: keth. It was pointed out that the assessment was excessive as the com-/ pany was doing its own pumping- ancfc working its deep level ground, and? thereby testing the deep levels of the"} Thames at its own cost, and so far free of cost to other companies; that \ the remaining assessments Were .too low and did not fairly represent the contributions the mines so.assessed should pay. . . • ' . ' Tlie manager, of the Victoria r.GM, Company objected-to the supplementary rate of £165. . . : A letter was. also read -from th§ '"'■ Knramu objecting to the assessment, Mr Tunks stated that ■ the Queen Company was. obliged to use its own pumps to supplement' the work of the pumps for which coiitribution was required. The company could not carry on its work unless1 it used its own pumps, and the company •therefore considered it was entitled to credit for the amount expended by it (£3OO per annum). If it was obliged to pay the:' supplementary rate ;'a,3 •well it would mean a payment on the supplementary rate of £795, which was: obviously unfair. The ' Chairman bore . out what • <Vfr Tuhks' said. The May Queen, "he thought, were entitled to receive something for lifting the water.- ,' Mr Sorenson thought it would be best to appeal straight to the Warden. The Chairman then moved: "That • the Board uphold the supplementary assessment for the current year." Mr J.R. Gray seconded. < 7: . Mr I-lesketh said he stipplrted the matter merely as a formality, so: as ito get the whole matter discussed before the Warden. . .'. .. - • "; The motion of- the" Chairman was put'and adopted. , - Messrs Hesketh. and Kissling1 stated" they wished to have recorded on fhe minutes that they consented to the resolution formally, solely with a view of the whole matter going" before the Warden, being satisfied that a majority ol the Board disapprove of rthe assessment as being* inequitable. :' The meeting1 then adjoiirnedi. ' j