CHAUCER ROAD QUARRY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3101, 6 June 1881, Page 3

CHAUCER ROAD QUARRY.

The select committee appointed to enquire into the circumstances attending the dangerous state of the quarry in Chaucer-road met on Saturday. After proceeding to and inspecting the quarry the committee assembled in the Mayor's ofEce.

Mr Lamb stated that in accordance with instructions given to him he had examined the quarry. He considered it unsafe, and had reported to that effect. He also had stated that tbe contractors using the quarry, Messrs Glendinning and Griffin, appeared to be willing to do anything to remedy the evil, but were apparently helpless in the matter. The reason they were helpless, according to Mr Glendinning's explanation, was that they had proposed to Mr Davies that they would take down the dangerous portion between the two quarries, and deposit the same in Mr Davies' quarry, or take the material and pay him double royalty for the same, but Mr Davies refused. He (Mr Lamb) informed Cr. M'Dougall to that effect. Mr Glendinning said that when he took the quarry he saw that to work it it would have to be left in a dangerous state. He therefore asked Mr Davies for permission to work it and pay him double royalty for tbe privilege, but was premptorily refused by him. He then asked the agent for the owner to endeavor to arrange the matter between Mr Davies and himself (Mr Glendinning), but the agent informed him that Mr Davies would not agree.

In answer to Mr Ellis, Mr Glendinning said that when Mr Davies left his quarry he left it perfectly safe.

Mr Lamb Baid, in answer to a question from Mr M'Dougall, that he was requested to report upon Messrs Glendinning and Griffin's quarry, and not upon the portion belonging to Mr Davies. Mr Glendinning said that Mr Lamb had reported the conversation quite correctly. He considered his quarry to be generally safe now. He had made it safe by encroaching on another man's property. Mr Davies asked Mr Glendinning whether ho leased the quarries from him. Mr Glendinning said he did not lease them, but he had a verbal offer from Mr Davies, which he accepted, for the whole of the quarries, The royalty agreed upon was one penny per yard. The reason he did not finally accept the arrangement was because he had it on authority that Mr Davies had written a letter to a councillor referring to the way in which No. 5 contract was being c .r----ried out. He had reason to believe*hat such a letter had been written. He had enquired of the Town Clerk about it, who said he had neither seen or received such a letter. He did not feel bound to carry out a verbal agreement with anyone who treated him in s- h a manner.

Mr Davies said that Mr Glendinning had afterwards offered to pay one penny per yard royalty for a portion of a section, the portion which was afterwards complained of. Mr Glendinning never offered to pay double royalty on a portion, nor did he make any offer to take the dangerous portion down and deposit it on his (Mr Davies') quarry. Mr Glendening said that he had been informed that the royalty Mr Davies was paying was a half penny per yard, and he offered one peuny. The offer was made to an agent, not to Mr Davies himself.

Mr Davies said, from his knowledge of quarrying, he did not believe the present condition of the quarries to be

unsafe. The cause of the danger had arisen from the undermining of tbe division by Mr Glendinning. He had been publicly accused of being the cause of this dangerous, condition of the quarry, and he had desired this enquiry to protect himself against such accusations. If Mr Glendeuiog made him an offer now to take down the dangerous portion of the quarry, and deposit it upon his land, he would not accept it, as he was ia treaty for leasing the whole of the quarries. He would refuse, although he admitted there was danger to the men working in Glendining's quarry. On his side the quary was perfectly safe, and the danger to the men arose wholly on Mr Glendining's side. He had three witnesses outside who were willing to give evidence as to the safe condition of his quarry if the committee would hear them.

Mr Lamb said that, from casual ob ervation, he should say that Mr Glendinning had not gone beyond his boundary. Mr Glendinning said that he would agree to have tne place surveyed by a licensed surveyor, and if it was found that he had encroached beyond his boundary he would pay for the survey. Mr Davies said that, if the survey proved him to be wrong, he would pay half the cost.

At tbe suggestion of Mr Ellis it was agreed to employ Mr Lessong to survey the quarries. Mr Job Walsb, foreman quarryman, was called, and said that the quarries were left in a perfectly safe state on Mr Davies' side, but not so on Mr Glendinninning's side, as he was now encroaching on Mr Davies' portion. The enquiry then closed, and the committee will report at the next meeting of the Council.