WESTSHORE BRIDGE COMMISSION.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 267, 27 October 1916, Page 2

WESTSHORE BRIDGE COMMISSION.

WAIROA COUNTY’S CASE.

Ernest Glendinning, sheepfarmer, at Waikare, said sheep were never sent out of Wairoa on account of droughts. Arthur Sinclair, employed by Richardson and Co., who said he occupied the position of assistant shipping manager, gave evidence as to the extent of the Mohaka-Wairoa coastal trade, which was shown to be very considerable. Henry McGrath, drover, said he regularly took stock via Wharera'ngi, because there was more feed there, more water and less- traffic. He would never endeavour to drive stock over the embankment and bridge. This concluded Wairoa’s case. HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL Mr. E. H. Williams asked for Hastings to be dismissed from the proceedings. He submitted that the Napier, representatives had adduced no evidence to show that Hastings should be called upon to pay one sixpence towards the bridge. An occasional picnic party or a drove ot sheep was insufficient to show that Hastings should contribute. The existence of Hastings did not depend on the bridge. Hastings people could have got on perfectly well without the bridge, and the fact that some ratepayers of Hastings had advocated the branching off of the East Coast railway through Puketapu evidenced that the bridge was, to them, unnecessary. The bridge was in no sense essential to the residents of Hastings. It had not been shown that the bridge had not been shown that tbe bridge would be an advantage to the whole of the Hastings Borough, and it was therefore useless to go on with it. Ii it was found that the Hastings people used the Westshore bridge, then it should be argued, as a set off, that tbe Napier people could avail themselves of any advantages there. He contended, therefore, that it would be unnecessary for him to call evidence. Mr. Martin said if it could be show’n that the southern part of Haw’ke’s Bay benefitted by tbe bridge then there must be a reflex benefit to Hastings. In the absence of a bridge the southern portion of Hawke’s Bay would be cut off from the north. He submitted that there was a perfect case to go before the Commissioner, the only question being the assessment of the amount.

The Commissioner said he had to consider that the case for Napier was not completed until the tally was taken. In his opinion Napier had not made out its case against the Hastings Borough. He was inclined to think that Hastings was not adjacent to the bridge, but as the evidence was not yet complete, that was the tally, he did not think he could discharge them. Havelock was, he considered, quite out of it. He did not think the tally was sufficient, in this case, to prove that Hastings was adjacent. He was not, huw’ever, prepared to strike out Hastings unless Mr. Martin was willing. As a large sum was involved he wanted to have the whole matter thoroughly thrashed out in fairness to all parties. He intimated that the question of costs in connection w’ith the new tally would be considered when he gives his award. Arthur Admiral and Arthur Toothill, who cheeked the tally taken by the County Council, gave evidence regarding same. TARADALE’S OBJECTION. Mr. Grant contended that no case had been made against Taradale, and he proposed to withhold his evidence until after the tally. HAVELOCK’S CASE. Mr. A. E. Currie withheld his evidence, and said no mention had been made of Havelock North in the Napier Borough Council’s case. He asked for the case against them to be dismissed. The Commissioner said he could not dismiss the case till after the tally. THE ADJOURNMENT. It was decided that the Napier Borough should take a tally between Ist and 21st December. The Commissioner said he would adjourn to some time early in February. SUPREME COURT POINT. The Commissioner said he would refer Mr. Williams’ point to the Supreme Court so that it could be argued in December. The point in question was that the County Council was the only body having the power to cite prospective contributting bodies. -