Correspondence.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 261, 8 May 1895, Page 2

Correspondence.

(.We <!<> not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of correspondents. j THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE TEMPERANCE LUNCHEON. TO THE KDITOH OF THE STAR. Sin, — I have been requested by the Temperance Committee to give the correct version of the luncheon episode to the Hawcra Mounted Rifles during the late encampment. On Easter Monday we (the officers of the Napier and Hastings Rillcs) applied for use of the large building known as Glasgow House, to the Temperance people, who kindly assisted us in getting use of the building, and allowed us the use of firewood to dry our damp selves and belongings. Hearing that they were to have a tea-light we arranged that the men (to the number of 157) should all attend, for which we paid Is each. After tea I was appealed to (as the only oflieer present at the time) to assist in getting np a programme for the concert as the artsits arranged for bad been in some cases detained at Marton, Palmerstou, etc., on account of the weather, which 1 did, the men being only too happy to assist. For the concert every man was charged sixpence extra, and the Volunteers formed a very large portion of the audience. The management expressed their gratitude for assistance in making the whole all'air such a success, and the chairman invited me in the name of the companies, to lunch on the following day. 1 fully understood that Ibis was an invitation in the ordinary sense of the word, and as a i/i'id pro ijuo for our assistance given, and reported so to Captain Chicken and other officers. On Tuesday we were ordered to the station, and were unable to take advantage of the invitation. There Mr Shearer met me, and expressed regret that we could not take advantage of the lunch, but 1 suggested that the invitation should be transferred to our friends, the Hawcra Mounted liiiie.s (represented by Trooper Vail) who I introduced to Mr Shearer, and to whom the invitation was there ami then transferred in my hearing by Mr Shearer. i have entered into full particulars so that innocent ('?) people may not be misunderstood. I am, tfcc, J. P. Thomson, Lieutenant Napier Rifles. Napier, May Ist, IS'JS. BE THE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS. TO THE KDITOII OF TIIK STAR. Sn:, —In Mr Gicscn's letter on Saturday he says " There are no insuperable objections in the way of placing the buildings in the Square, even in the centre of the c.oks rop.ds, Manchester street and Kimbolton road, because neither of the roai/s- or the S'/uare have evrr been dedicated to the public." If there is anything in snch a statement it must mean that the roads remain the private property of the Company of winch he signs himself as manager. This would include the right to build upon, fence, levy tolls, or place any other obstructions thereon ; and if it were possible to get any Court to uphold his contention, it would involve the inhabitants into living in Feilding by the sufferance of " The Manager." Of course if the Corporation sold sections subject to certain surveys and maps with roads marked on them, J and could secretly reserve to themselves the right at any future time to claim those roads as private property, their actions would be open to unpleasant remarks, and two things would become questionable : — Their conduct in the first instance, and the way any Court would view it in the second. Having laid down the law and stated his official position, how does Mr Giesen reconcile the assertion that the roads don't belong to the public, with his subsequent argument that " The Public Works Act gives power to a Borough Council to diminish the width of any roads?" If they arc not public roads what has the Borough Council to do with them ? If they arc public roads, the Supreme Court ■will give a sounder opinion than Mr Giesen as to anybody's right to build upon or otherwise obstruct the public thoroughfare, and the Mayor was justified in saying that an " injunction " would most likely be obtained to stop any such action. If Mr Giesen 's contention is sound, it introduces another point of interest, and that is, by what right the ratepayers' money has been expended upon other people's private property. I once had occasion to obtain legal advice on the subject, and, as far a's niy memory serves, it was the business of the auditor to refuse to pass such payments, and compel the Borough Councillors who authorised them to be personally responsible for the amounts. I do not wish to quarrel with any man's; opinion, but could not resist the temptation of exposing the absurdity of Mr Giesen's published reasons for bis, and what would be the equally absurd results if there was any sound foundation for them. I am, etc., F. A. Monckton. The Camp, May 6th, 1895. P.S. — Since writing the above I think I can guess what quibble Mr Giesen is going on. The sections of Feilding were sold in 1874 (over twenty years ago) but a map was deposited iv the Lands Transfer Office ' in 1876 (less than twenty , years' ago), and Mr Giesen, while thinking that twenty years usage gives a tenure, does not apparently know that the deposit of the map under that time also gives it. — F.A.M.