MATTERS CONCERNING THE “PIEBALD” HILL

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume L, Issue 7958, 10 April 1922, Page 2

MATTERS CONCERNING THE “PIEBALD” HILL

EXCEPTION TAKEN To STATEMENTS .MADE AT OTUMOETAI. '

At a meeting hold at Of,, on March 30 %rtah were ii'-id.- bv Mr S ■S'""® ’’piebald’’ hill. WeJ * Mr Thompson formed one of-,,) putation which wailed u po „ ‘ Coumy Council on Friday.* he proposed an.! bridge, and before the dc puta tom withdrew Cr Darragh rose to his loot and intimated that 1 wanted ooitain matters in to Mr Thompson’s remarks olwh up. lie objected to Mr Thompson stating that a mistake had L, made in regard to the work on tk two lulls. No mistake had W made by the. Council. Half 0 f the screenings were put on the Concw turn Hill and half on Tanner’s Hill' Mr Thompson, in his remarks at Oiumoetai, had reflected on tli* county engineer and on the whole Council. jTo asked‘that Mr 1V« be given a chance to clear himself Cr Grant did not think they should waste time on the matter ' Cr Darragh I would lib M r Dago to be given a chance to cleat the matter up. Mr Pago said there was a understanding somewhere. He quoted passages from the report of Mr Thompson's remarks, in. which Mr Thompson was reported to have said; “Eventually the Council set to work : not, however, at Tanner’s Hill but on the bilinear Mr Curries. When half-way down ' they found a mistake had been made, anl then the work was transferred to Tanner's Hill but when half-way down the hill the chips ran out . Mr Thompson here explained that a mistake had been made in the report . He had not mentioned Currie’s Hill, but had referred to Kmips’ Hill Mr Page-- 1 resent the statement that I put the metal on the wrong hill.

Mr Thompson said the matter was before the Farmers’ 11111011, It asked that Tanner’s Hill should be chipped. Only half of Tanner's Hill bad been chipped, and they were promised that the whole of it would be chipped. Cr Darragh : No! No! . , Mr Page addressing Mr Thompson : Yon were promised fifty yards of chips and you got them. The Council’s promise was fulfilled. Mr Thompson replied that lie did not make any reflection wi the engineer. The Fanners’ Union is of opinion that a mistake was made, Only half of Tanner’s Hill was done.

Mr Page rejoined that he only promised fifty yards of chips for the Otumoetai Hills, and he put them where he thought best, ou the worst portions. There was no mistake. It would have taken 150 yards to do Tanner’s Hill. ; Mr Kingsbury: I understood that fifty yards of drips were promised. , Mr Thompson said the Fanners Union had unanimously passed » resolution that chips be put on Tanner’s Hill, and were given a promise that they would be put on that lull but only part of the hill ’had been done. ‘ , , Or Darragh : We are not bound to do what the Farmers’ Union ask. We put the screenings on the two hills. , Mr Kingsbury: I understood that fifty yards were to bo put on the two hills. b Mr Tolleniache stated that- the screenings were put on the . ngp place and the only fault was there was not enough of them. ■, ■ The matter then dropped and W Otumoetai deputation withdrew.