CORRESPONDENCE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8094, 23 September 1904, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

COUNTY COUNCIL AND TOWN BOARD.

(To the Editor.) Sir,— ln reading over the reported proceedings of the meeting of ratepayers held at Normaiiby on the 20th, I could not but feel amused at the great importance Mr Rowe and oilier speakers seem to attach to the difference of opinion that exists between the old County Council and the Normanby Town Board with regard to tne part of the county road that runs through that township. I can assure Mr Rowe and the other speakers the Council do not look at Che matter in so serious a light ; ' in fact, the Council view it as a matter of business between the two bodies. The facts, so far as I am aware, are as follows:— Some years ago the County Council by special resolution handed over to the Nornuuiby Town Board all county roads within the Normanby boundary, to be leapt and maintained by them, at the same time giving them the power to levy and spend the county rates accruing within those bounds. . . , By the Act a certain number of days have to elapse between the passing of the special resolution and the meeting confirming the same. Now it appears tliat the specified time did not elapse before the confirmation of the order. The Town ]}oard took exception to thai, And obtained legal advice, but found that though the County Council were wrong, still that did not relieve the Board of the liability cast upon them. The Town Board seem to have settled down to their liability for sonve years. Then after about 13 years or so they sent a statement- to the Council in which it •was shown that they had spent some £240 over and above the county rates they .were allowed to collect, and asking the K&uncil to refund the same. fihe Council replied that they could jnot entertain tho request, as they have mo jurisdiction over the roads, and pointed ont'furtner that as the Board were rcoeiv4na £126 per annum from publicans lireuses fcdey considered the Board had funds to maintain the roads. (The <Qver<expenditure amounted to about £21) ' Pe Mews Rowe aad Gibson waited on the Council with a pile of book* and documents, and wanted the whole matter K one into from the jnitiaUou of the Normanby Town Board. The Council said that while willing to deal with the future, they dedined to interfere with the past. As that .did not meet Mr Rowe's view he left,. and ao /urther business was done. At the roads were in a dangerous state, tho Omfxdl offered to mwt tho Board and maSy a <»»mit£e of three County CouncHters met tho Town Board, and it was aiaiged that »• Board should repair Si* roads, and t*» «** should be borne SuaUV brt^n tto » two bodies. R was . farther aareed that the Governor should be asked to appoint a Commissioner to deeMeVMkTwhTwas liable for the upkeep of the roads for the future. In due course fha Oommissfcm sat, and tbe *dimwM that tho roads in dispute were undoubt«sv ttSwthe control of the Normanby Wn BcarTbut he further added that CtLuKht he County Council ought to £nte!bX towards tn« matotenance, but to what extent he pould not say, as no UA not sufficient evidence to show. Now the matter standa thus. The Omnty Cornell and the Town Board cannot the matter^ There are "veral mis-Btate-«nent> reported, but as lam *fr«d J have trespasfedtoo much on your valuable space H wffilet them P"»-^^f NKft