ROAD BOARDS IN CONFLICT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12424, 13 February 1901, Page 3

ROAD BOARDS IN CONFLICT.

ASHLEY TRAFFIC BRIDGE. At the Rangiora Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., the Ashley Road Board sought to recover from the Kowai Road Board the sum of £95 16s, being 15j per cent of £6lB Is 4d expended by the Ashley Board between July 1, 1898, and Sept. 30, 1899, in the making of a groin and a gravel' bank planted with willows for the protection of the Ashley traffic bridge. Mr Fisher, and with him Mr Helmore, appeared for the plaintiff Board, and Mr Harper, with Mr Johnston, for the defendants. In opening the case, Mr Fishier said that under warrant issued by the Minister of Public Works on Nov. 7, 1885, the cost of the maintenance of the Ashley traffic bridge was apportioned as follows : —Ashley Road Board 55 per cent, Rangiora Borough Conned 22 per cent, Kowai Road Board 15£ per cent, and the Mandeville and Rangiora Road Board per cent. The control of the bridge was vested in the Ashley Road Board. In 1897 the s river broke through on the southern side of the bridge, and rendered the structure useless in flood times. A conference of local bodies interested was held, and' on representation being made to the Government a grant- of £IOOO was obtained to repair the bridge and erect protective works. A bank was constructed, but just after its completion the river broke through behind it and an extension became necessary. The Government agreed to give £l5O. towards the extension and raising of the bank, on condition that the local bodies contributed a like amount. As it was necessary to protect the work already done, the extension' was carried out expeditiously. The Ashley Board had not only to maintain the bridge but also to construct and maintain the protective works. The law was that tho duty of maintaining a bridge carried with it the power to do all necessary work to maintain it, and the contention was that the Board was perfectly justified in doing any work for the protection of the I;ridge. ■

' The claim for £95 16s was for a proportion of the cost of work done, after giving credit for the £IOOO and £l5O granted by the Government, and the defendant Board refused to pay on the ground that the extended ■ Avork was not necessary, and that the Board was not properly consulted before the expenditure was incurred. Evidence was given by W. J. Joy.nt, clerk to the plaintiff Board, J. Burnett, Chief Government Railway Engineer (taken in Wellington), A. D. Dobson, M.1.C.E., J. Dobson, chairman of the Board, E. B. Millton, chairman, of the Board dining the time the protective works were in progress, S. Kingsbury and J. Ellwood. It was stated that contrary to the Public Works Act. the Ashley Board carried out the -extension works without first submitting p\rns, specifications and estimates to the local bodies interested, and further that the defendant Board consistently opposed the whole of the protective works. Mr Fisher put in a copy of a. Governmentproclamation of April 1, 1896, declaring the Ashley traffic bridge, and its approaches a public work, and another proclamation, dated Oct. 3, 1900, declaring the protective works to be part of the bridge to be maintained by the local bodies. In opening the defence Mr. Harper said that the-proclamation of October, 1900, was based..on the decision of• the commission held by Mr Short, under the amended Public Works Act,- making the protective

allocation of the cost of maintenance'to be borne under the altered conditions. The proclamation expressly set out the future costs to be borne 'to'make it quite clear that the allocation was not to be retrospective. The action of the Board prior to this; was based on the powers, given by.a warrant issued by the Minister of Public Vvorks, which had no reference whatever to any work outside the actual wooden struct ture of the bridge. .The Board hadiiot taken advantage of the powers-given by'the. subsequent Acts, and. consequently, had, nolegal claim against the Kowai Board for any protective works done prior to the proclamation of October 1900. Further, the Board had failed, in its duty in not submitting plans before commencing the extended bank, a necessary procedure, clearly set out in the Public Works Act. Mr E, B. Holdsworth, chairman of the Kowai Road Board .during the time the protective works were constructed, stated that the Board 'had persistently objected to the works on the ground that they constituted a danger to the public and private property in its district by risk of overiiow. The Board was nob a party to the work in any way, nor was it consulted before 'the extended works were carried out. As a result of the erection of the bank the ratepayers near the river were compelled to rata themselves for protective works..- - Mr Harper agreed with the Stipendiary Magistrate that the case turned 1 upon the construction to be placed'on the proclamations and the clauses of the Public Works Act bearing on it, and called no more witnesses.

Mr Fisher argued that section 164 of the 1894 Act, together with the proclamation of 1896 gave the Board power to carry out and claim for erecting protective works as main'teuace of the bridge. The Magistrate reserved his decision.