EASTBOURNE BOROUGH

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 184, 30 April 1924, Page 10

EASTBOURNE BOROUGH

COUNCIL MEETING The monthly meeting of the Eastbourne Borough Council was held last night. The deputy-Mayor (Councillor H. W. Shortt) presided, and there were also present: Councillors A. Walker. E. A. Dau son, H. M. Jones, 0. Hull-Brown, and C. Hartridge. The acting-town clerk reported the registration of 75 dogs since January I, the total registration fees beinr £3B 16s. Outstanding rates at March 31, including those for 1922-23, and ten per cent, additional, amounted to £431 10s. Bd. It was hoped to have the detailed estimates for the ensuing year ready for the next ordinary meet, ing. The work of the borough was proceeding steadily, and in view of the restricted finances, only bare maintenance work, with the exception of Nikau Street work and sea wall erection, was toeing done. In the works committee’s report, which was adopted, it was stated that the work in hand and necessary, wan much beyond the finance at the committee’s disposal, and the staff available. No new works could be undertaken. and routine work was much behind. The estimates had been compiled as far as possible, but the actingtown clerk had informed the committee that they could not be completed till the valuation department advised the position to date, and the auditor advised the proper balances. It was stated by Messrs. Montgomery, Neilsen, Edmunds and Company, of Australia, who are to take charge of tho borough water and drainage scheme, that Professor Montgomery Neilsen and Mr. Edmunds would arrive in 'Wellington on May 13. A letter was received from the borough solicitors stating that the owners of the Naringa had issued a writ claiming £1675 2s. 4d.. alleging that the Muritai had collided with the Naringa, the collision allegedly being due to the following causes:—(l) The unseaworthiness of the Muritai, in that her engines would not reverse on account of one of the keys having fallen out of the wipers of the reversing gear • (2) the negligence of the master and crew of the Muritai in directing, managing and steering the ship. The borough solicitors gave it as their opinion that the Borough Council was liable up to £8 per tonnage of the Muritai. Under the collision clause of the insurance policy, the insurance companieu undertook to pay three-quarters of six-sevenths of any amount (not exceeding £8 per ton of the Muritai’s registered tonnage), which the borough was liable to pay. The Muritai’s registered tonnage was 199.44 tons, so that at £8 per ton. tho insurance companv should pay their proportion on £1595 Jos. 7d. It was suggested, however, that the insurance companies be now approached, and asked to pay as their quota, threefourths of six-sevenths of the total cost of repairing the vessel, namely, £1668 9s. Bd., plus a similar proportion of any costs incurred in connection with the claim. _ If the insurance companies recognised the above as their proportion of the loss, the costs of repairs would be borne as follows :—lnsurance companies, £1072 12s. : Borough Council. £595 17s. Bd. The acting-traffic manager reported that passengers had been carried for the month of March as follows:— Muritai. 41.763: Duchess, 17.036: Cobar 14,967. The total was 73.766. as against 68,320 for March, 1923. Hie total number of passengers carried for the rear ended March 31 last was 844,674, as against 641,358 for 192223- . . , The council unanimously supported Mr. W. T. Strand’s road scheme, and undertook to render him every assistance within its power. It was estimated toy Councillor G. A. Dawson that the ferry service throughout the year ending March 31 last was losing .18d. ver passenger travelling. The expenditure amounted to £21.338 75.. nnd the receipts £l9 224 19s. Id., for 844.674 passengers.