TAIERI MOUTH BRIDGE

Evening Star, Issue 15432, 4 March 1914, Page 2

TAIERI MOUTH BRIDGE

CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE. On resuming after lunch yesterday the. evidence for the Bruce Council was concluded with that of L. W. Potter, who 4 said, in addition to corroborating the evidence of tho previous witnesses, that the Bruce Council received latterly as revenue from the punt from £3O to £4O per annum. The puntman received £6O a year. o.* this, Bruce contributed £4O and Taieri £2O. He did not remember any payment of the punt's revenue money to Taieri Council. The loan of £I,OOO raised by the settlers was borne by about 36, of whom 10 were crib owners, paying very little rates. Witness was a good deal at Taieri "Mouth, and from his observations while there had no hesitation in stating that the bridge was as great a convenience to one side as to the other. Tenders woulfl be called for cleaning the Titri canal at the next meeting of the council. Either the canal or the newly-erected tramway was necessary to those people who shipped goods up the river in preference to sending them across the bridge. Mr Cook, in opening the case for' the defendant body, Taien County Council, maintained that the road from the brid|| was-the main'artery to Dunedin and other places used by settlers on the Bruce side of the river. The Bruce Council objected to pay two-thirds of the upkeep of tho bridge, although at the conferences between ths two bodies prior to its erectign, at which they pressed for equal contributions, they were obliged to give way. The nature of"the country was such as to lead traffic from Bruce over the bridge, and not from Taieri rnto Bruce. It must have been recognised by the Waihola. and Glenledi Ridings of Bruce County that the bridge would be an advantage, otherwise windid they agree to the loan? There was rnieh mora population on the Bruce side, than on Taieri, and those on the Taieri side could almost as easily use the Kuri store and post office if need be. Should the bridge be removed:, it would not he ha#d to find out which side would be most inconvenienced- When the punt was working the Taieri settlers used it as a landing stage, and when the new wharf was erected on the Taieri side they would have a landing again, and would have no need to cross the bridge. Evidence was then given by Fred Freeman (Taieri County councillor), Robert Westwood (Taieri County roads and bridges inspector), and John Williamson (ranger for Taieri County), which showed that the Taieri made very little use of the bridge in'comparison with Bruce. Ihe Bruce side was closely settled, while Taien side was made up of scenic reserve, Maori lands, and a few acres of poor agricultural land, on which only some half a dozen families resided. The Taieri Council always had objected to a large contribution towards the bridge, because they reckoned that once the bridge was up Bruce settlers would then use their roads more. In summing up the evidence, Mr Reid (for Bruce) said that before a district can be made to pay more than half-cost of maintenance of a bridge substantial reasons must be forthcoming for so doing, but Taieri had failed to produce any. Then? witnesses were all foreign to Taien Mouth, and the evidence, in consequence, was not of much use, while, on the contrary, Bruce witnesses resided at the Mouth and were more competent to give a correct testimony. Anv use that was made by Bruce settlers was more than made up for by the use made of itl by Taieri settlers. In fixing the proportion of upkeep Mr Row a*ked the Commissioner to remember that it was onlv a small number of settlers who had contributed the necessary loan, not the whole of Bruce County. The Commissioner, m closing the hearing said he would visit the bridge and surrounding country in the morning. He would afterwards forward a report to His Excellency the Governor, and each party to the dispute would receive a copy ot it in due course.