BOROUGH V. COUNTY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 37, 12 February 1904, Page 2

BOROUGH V. COUNTY.

ARBITRATION COURT, (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) PAEROA, tihis day. Regarding the Arbitration Court wW* sat here yesterday to inqmre into certali matters in dispute between the "Wailii Bβrough and the Ohinemnri County, the go* tions in dispute shortly are:—(l). Tie Berough Council claims that the sum of £H* 5/2, being part of certain some paid by H* borough to the county under the provWoai of tiie said proclamation, is not charteabto to and should not have been paid as rot* maintenance, as it is part of a sum of 13W expended by the County Council ont rf» special Government grant. (2.) lbs oj" rough Council claims that the sum rf £ »3 15/6, charged by Che County Council for H» period Ist March, 1902, to 31et October. 1902, was not chargeable to the eaid pew* and should not have been paid therefore, but was and is chargeable to the year ending the 31st October, 1903, the saidexpe- ; diture being for road metal spread in ApnV 1903, Which said road metal was brora and the property of the County Cooncn prior to the Ist March, 1902, the,date ot the incorporation of trie borough, w"™* borough claims that the County Conneß « oniy entitled to charge it with its proportion of the cost of road metal spread <* the said road when the same Is actually spread or planted thereon, and not wt» the sa-aie is broken. Mr Jackson represented the Boroujk Council, Mr MeArfihur (borough engineer). Mr Corbett (assistant engineer), ,and »r Morpeth (town clerk) being also present; whilst Mr Miller appeared for the conatr, and .Messrs Poland (chairman) and Kenny, (clerk) were also present Mr Jackson reviewed at some lengtfl_il* points in dispute, contending that tine GWerament grams were made under an -Appropriation Act, that a specified stun '**» given for a particular road,, and that tM local body were only the .medium tbropg* which this money was expended, and were in the position of trustees. He quoted sections 5 and 12 of the Appropriation A«i a support. Mr McArthur gave evidence, stating,, in reply to Mr Miiler, that the Government gave payment on road works in jirogrea and paid for metal got out for and'before tine same was spread. With regard to pWing for metal before it was spread, J« Jackson said the borough were prepared to pay interest on any money the .county expended in procuring and breaking ine ," fl ' until the same was actually spread. XJaoer the present system the county might g« a very large' quantity of metal and leave it lying on the side of the road aatd not . spread it for years, and the borough woaia have paid their share of the cost of. men i metal. Mr Miller quoted section i? 8 •of the ! Counties Act, giving the deftnition oi "county fund. -, and argued that -such »™ , included donations and any moneys -giv™ by Act of the Genera , Assembly. He: au>« contended that it was no business oi ™ borough how the county money was obtained. Under the proclamation they °?£ to pay 2/3 of all moneys expended By l "» Council out of the county fund up to a i tain fixpd annual sum. Tho Connty cil might tiud it necessary to siderably more thai) the borough_s snarj and the Government grants were ™ *"5 meiit the county fund, and not to-rg•« the borough. Ilegarding the £62i, M * ler held that the question of time was a subject for decision, but only the.amow and in this case the amount was w> l "g puted. In any case this payment was by-the borough with their eyes open, vm they stated in a covering letter t*£twj paid this, tmt it was not to be ta«B.» precedent. . • - ta Mr MUler held that the county. of road maintenance was the most c mical system, and that the \ a enUtled to pay tneir share, as sucn expended by the county. ~ d B y Mr Kenny, county clerk, was »gg rf Mr MiUer to show that 1^ is th s e payment was carried out by the ■ ment in the expenditure of GOTenu- " After Mr Jackson had replied Mgfefii Giles said he would give his aeo« the course of a day or two.