THE KILBIRNIE TUNNEL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 275, 13 August 1908, Page 8

THE KILBIRNIE TUNNEL.

PROPERTY-OWNERS' CONTRIBUTIONS. RESULT OF A TEST CASE. It is probable that an appeal will bo made against tho decision of Mr. Justice Chapman in tho case hoard in February last of the Haitaitai Estato Company v. J. J. Boyd, of Kilbirnio. Tho decision concerns a number of other residents of Kilbirnie. Mr. Boyd was sued by tho Company for a contribution towards tho construction of tho Kilbirnio Tunnel, and tho Company obtained judgment. Tho facts of tho case are of public interest.

Mr. Boyd's statement of tho caso is that somo timo ago there was an agitation amongst dwellers beyond tho Kilbirnio hills for a tunnel giving rapid pedestrian acccss into the city. Then tho Haitaitai Estato Company took the matter up, and obtained signatures from owners of property to an agreement whereby the latter would pay Is. per frontago foot of their holdings towards the cost of the tunnel. The tunnel, however, was to bo for pedestrian traffic, and was to picrce'the hill from Rixon's Grovo at the top of Elizabeth Street and open out on to Haitaitai, a chain higher up than tho present tunnel exit. Tlio Company opened negotiations with the City Council, and as a result tho present tunnel for the city tramway was constructed. It contains no footway. Tho contribution of the Company to tho cost of construction was £10,000. The property-owners who signed the agreement were called upon to pay their shillings, in proportionate allotments, but, they now state, they had thought the project dropped since tho tunnel they desird was not proceeded with. None ■of them, therefore, would pay their contributions. Mr. Boyd, who was among tho number, was sued, aud, as already. stated, lost his case.

Last evening a meeting of the subscribers was called at Kilbirnio to discuss whether Mr. Boyd should bo supported in an appeal. The meeting, however, was adjourned. Mr. Boyd had obtained a legal opinion from Mr. Skorrett, which, he will submit to tho adjourned meeting. Mr. Skerrett therein states that ho could not profess to expross a vory decided opinion, but the view he had formed, after consideration, was that a definite ■ scheme had been contemplated regarding the tunnel, details being left to the Corporation. Part of that defined schemo had involved the site of the tunnel, and naturally of tho tramway,' and tho existence of the footpath through the tunnel. And the Company had had no power to alter a material part of such schemo without tho consent of tho contributors if they desired to hold tho contributors to their obligation. Ho thought tho omission of the footway was a m&terial alteration, involving a large reduction in tho cost of tho tunnel, and tho omission of a great convenienco to tho inhabitants of Haitaitai. Ho thought, therefore, the appeal should succeed. The amount involved, as far as the pro-property-owners aro concerned, is about £800 or £900. Tho property owners complain that when not using the trams they have a long tramp to make to got into tho city that would bo obviated if a tunnel for pedestrian purposes existed. In short,, they say they havo not got what they wanted and stipulated for.