THE KNAPDALE KOAD BOARD AND PATERSON'S ROAD.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 17, Issue 17, 26 April 1895, Page 6

THE KNAPDALE KOAD BOARD AND PATERSON'S ROAD.

« : — TO THE EDITOB. ' Sir,— l observe that at a moefing of the [ Board on Friday last, this evergreen dispute ' was again ia agitation. For mauy years, i and more especially since the Compensation Court case sbout threo years ago, the matter . has caused great excitement among the ratei payers of thft district j and yet, notwithstanding the unlimited amount of correspondeace on the subject, the main facta of : the case have been lost sight of. About five years hqo Mr Paterson acquired Bcction 9, block XIV,, Ohatton, ou deferredpayment lease. In accordance with the provisions of the Land Act, a third of the payments is handed over to the Road Board >l lor and toward the construction aud main" tanancc of roada and bridgoa for the benefit of the selector," "or the money may from time to time be expended on the drainage i of said land " (vido sections 126 and 130 of , the Land Act). One half of the section was , isolated by a creek ; but there was a sur- , vey-sd roadline upon the land when it was acquired by Mr Paterson. Mr Paterson repsatedly made application, to the Road Board that the thirds accruing from the property should be spent on bridging the ; creek, and forming the road, to give him : access to his land. The Boad Board refused to do so, and applied to the Land Boaid for permission to make a deviation of the main road through Paterson'a section, but they were informed by that body that they had no power to Bend a road through th»t gvntleman'd land without his consent. Wotwithstanding this, however, the Board at a subsequent meeting, from which ratepayers were excluded, determined to make the deviation without consulting Mr Patewon. (I may here state that a protest was made agaiost the Board's practice of holding meetings for the transaction of extraordinary business from which the ratepayers were eicuded ; but Mr Gilchrist replidd, spying— " He did not think the Act contemplated the Board, for instanco, when considering a legal question, should show their hand. During the past t*vo years it had been verj necessary for the Board to go into committee, or the opposite side would have known all their intentions. 1 ') The map sent to the Governor and the one served upoa Mr Palereon were entitled " Road deviation through section 9, blonk XIV, Chatton District, while on them was the explanatory note, •' Boad to he opemd colored red, road to og closed colored green." A memorial was also sent to the Governor, signed by Duncan Gilcbrisfc and another member o£ the Board, stating that all the provisions of " Tha Public Works Act, 1582,' ? nnd the amendments thereto as to the taking of land by a local authoiity for a road deviation had been complied with, and on the same date Mr McQueen, the chairman of the Board, made a written declaration, which was also sent to the Governor, stating that all the provisions of " The Public Works Act "bs to taking the land, as described in the accompanying memorial, had been complied with by the Knapdale Road Board. Notwithstanding the map?, notices, memorial, and declaration, the Board declme:l at the Compensation Court that it was a new road, and not a deviation^ and that tho old road was not closed and not in • tended to be closed. Now it is an imperative condition in tho Public Works Act : 1. That no new lino of road shall bo laid out by n Koad Board over Crown lauds without the cansent of the Laui Board fyide section 90 of sub-seotion 2). SJ2. That nothing in thi3 Act shall authorise the commencement of aay work, or the removal of auy fencing upon any lauds, uutil fences have been lies'; made, so that all lands adjacent to land tnkja or works executed uader th f 3 Act shall ba as effyoUially protected against damage by trespass as before the commencement of such works (vido bection 21). I affirm that these provisions of the Act havft not bees complied with, and i£ Mr McQueen's declaration does not amount to perjury, Ido not know whit f'osa. Jt is trua that ho has tried to justify his action in miking a false dochrntion by stating that he refused for soma time to sign it, but did bo on be : n<s advised by a solicitor that he was justified in signing, because it was a public road. All that I can say is that lam extremely sorry for Me McQueen, or any other person, whose consjience is in the custody of a solicitor. Mr McQueen his maintained all along, with the support of Mr Gilchrist and others, that the Board had power to spend the thirds derived from Mr Paterson's section anywhere in the survey block ; and that Mr PatorpoT had no right to consideration in tho matfcor. He has repeatedly stated at meetings of the Board, and on one occasion at lea3fc for tho information of the three new members, that the Engineer's estimate for makirg ths original road was LSO ; and bo pointed out what an injustice it would have been to spend such a large amount, whgn a suitable deviation was available at a cost of LI. Now, this would have been very reasonable had it been true ; but, unfortunately, it is not true. At a moetine: of the Boad Board, reported in your issue of August 28th, 1894, it is shown that that body expended L6l 9s 6d of ratepayers' money in obtaining this deviationIt is a fact that fully LSO have accrued from Mr Paterson's deferred-payment section as thirds ; and about L2B had previously accrued from the same section, when held under perpetual leaeS ; altogether L7B set apart by the Legislature for the purpose of making this road. The Road Board, how» ever, have lifted and spent elsewhere, in contravention of tho Land Act, about L4O. The remainder, L3B, is still in the custody of the Land Board, who will allow it to be spent only in opening up the original road, The following is an extract from a report by the Board's Engineer ;— " The roadline through section 9, block XIV, Ohatton, would require L 35 to put it in a passable condition. The above includes a bridge or culvert which would cost L 20." In August, 1893, a requisition was presented to the Board, requesting that the thirds accruing from section 9, hlock XIV, Chatton, should be lifted and spent in. accordance, with the Laud, Act. This

requisition was signed by tha majority of <h» subdivision ; but the only satisfaction the petitioners received was an intimation from the chairman that the petition was not worth the paper it was written od, and that they should B ; ga a petition only for i something that benefited themselves. I can assure Mr McQteen that the ratepayers would have been very much benefited j had they signed a petition for an id junction | against him aDd hid trucklinga in spending L6l 9s 63 of their rates in carrying a second road through Paterson'a land, when there was plenty of money to make the original road free of cost to them. Mr McQueen's contention that everything done by the Board in tbis case has" been in the interests o£ ratepayers is, like the rest o£ his statements, not borne out by faci-s. Mr McQueen must observe that hia actions are not in harmony with tbe wishes of the ratepayers ; and, if he has any self-respect at all, must see it his daty to retire from ths Road Board.— l am, etc., Bona Fide. April 24, 1895.