NOLANTOWN MERGER

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 31 January 1925, Page 7

NOLANTOWN MERGER

PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED. The commission to enquire into the proposal to merge Xolnntown in the Borough of Hawera concluded its business at the Hawera Magistrate’s Court to-day. John W. Harding, county clerk, whose evidence was adjourned in order that he, together with the county overseer and the town clerk, might inspect the Nolantowii area and decide on a line which in their opinion would fairly separate the rural from the suburban land, was next called. Witness pointed out the area which he considered was rural land and' ought to be excluded.

H. S. Elliott, town clerk, said that if any portion of the area should be excluded it should be the portion marked rural by the county clerk. His opinion was, however, that the whole area should be included. There had licon practically no building in or around the borough during the past throe years owing to the slump, and if some of the area were excluded and general conditions shortly improved, building would take a new lease of life and people would shortly be askingwhy the whole of the area were not brought in. At this stage the evidence of the commission was declared closed. Mr. Houston said that the local authorities asked that in the event of tiro commission recommending a merger, the financial year be not split up. April 1 would be the date most suitable and, in view of the borough elections which took place on the last Wednesday in April, new burgesses would not be disfranchised.

Mr H. L. Spratt drew attention to the fact that the area in question was at present unnamed. It was locally known as Noiantown, hut the residents wished for a change. However, in order to retain old associations, the residents asked that the name be “Nolanville.” Mr Barton: "We can hardly make any recommendation without taking evidence. Those who ask for the new name may be in the minority, and if we did make sncli a recommendation, and the residents at some future date were nicknamed “Nolanvillians” the commission might be blamed. The question of which party or parties should bear the costs of the commission was then argued by counsel. In reply to Mr Houston, who contended that the local bodies should not bear any portion of the expense, Mr Barton remarked: “We might have t" treat the matter as divorce proceedings. and order the costs to be paid by the co-respondent and the petitioner. This concluded the hearing, Mr Barton stating that those concerned would hear later of the course to le taken.