A BRIDGE DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 57, 8 March 1923, Page 11

A BRIDGE DISPUTE

TJABILITY OF ADJOINING BODY.

A question of interest to local bodies generally came before the Supreme Court yesterday in the form o? an ori^iiiiit.'ng summons. The point for decision was: Does an addition to the length of a bridge constitute an "improving" of such bridge within the meaning of section 120 of the Public Works Act, 1908? The liability of adjoining local bodies to contribute in respect to the building and improvement of bridges was raised. The parties were the Borough Council of Gore, plaintiffs, and the County Council of Southland, defendants. Mr. Justice Chapman presided.

The Gore Borough Council caused two spans to be added to a bridge over the Mataura River, the spans being rendered necessary, owing to lioucls enJ&.igering the existing bridge, which contained five spans. After the additions had been made, the Gore Borough Council sought to obtain a contribution towards the cost of the additional apans from the Southland County Council. The Southland County Council contended that it could not be liable. as it had not been consulted before the additional spans had been erected. The question for the Court was whether there was power to obtain a contribution from the it could not be liable, as it had nob approved of the addition prior to the construction of the- spans. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. E. C. Smith, appeared for plaintiffs, Mr. R. Kennedy for the Southland County Council, and Mr. A. Fair for the At-torney-General. After hearing argument, His Honour reserved judgment.