TO THE EDITOR

Marlborough Express, Volume XLV, Issue 60, 11 March 1911, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —I think it may be fairly said that I am an old resident of this district, although only middle-aged myself.; but being born here, and a resident here ever since, it is only natural that I should take an interest in the welfare of this town, so I shall be glad if you will grant me a little space in your valuable columns to put before the ratepayers what I believe to be the true position with regard to the proposed loan of £65,----000. I have read the reports of the various speakers who are in favor of this loan; but they do not seem to put the position fairly before the ratepayers. I have come to the following conclusion: Firstly, that we are to mortgage our property to raise this loan of £65,000 by having a rate struck on the' unimproved value of the land in the Borough, to pay interest and sinking-fund, which means that our rates will be more than double what they are at present. Secondly ,_ every^ ratepayer who is connected with this drainage and watersupply will have to pay for having the said connection, which I understand will be about £25 or more for an ordinary four or five-roomed house. Then there is the water and drainage rate each year for the upkeep and working expenses to be paid^ by all those who use the same. I think, Sir, this is the true position; if not, I should be glad -if one of those who are in favor of this scheme will correct and put me right.

LAURITZ HOMES

Under, the auspices of the Marlborough Fruit-growers' Association Mr Boucher, Government Pomologist, will deliver a lecture in the Orange Hall on Tuesday evening on " Fruit Culture^ in _ Marlborou gh.'' The Association invite all who are interested in the industry to be present.

T Ais a Sequel to the appearance of ai■■jnjab of "sheep in Market Street on Wednesday: morning, T> W. Denton, through $Er Mills, pleaded guilty at ■■thfe Magistrate's Court this morning" tdia breach of the borough by-laws, and was fined Is. The presiding Jus^tices expressed the opinion that it was riot a casc-foi; a heavy penalty, as it was not generally known that there was a- by-law governing the droving of stock in existence.

A. McKenzie (Mr G. Rogers) proceeded against E. Priddle (Mr Mills) at the Magistrate's Court this morn.--ing on a claim of £1 Bs. Mr Millsi handed in a receipt for the amount claimed, which was admitted by the" plaintiff. It was pointed out by Mr Rogers, however, that this amount was placed in a collector's hands tocollect, and that defendant hact refused to produce the receipt wheni asked to. He submitted that the cost of the summons should be.borne by t the defendant, who, by his.-failure to pr<sduee the- receipt* had brought on the case. Mr Mills contended that it was not the duty of his client toproduce his receipt to anyone whocame along, and stated that ' theCourt must"give judgment" for the defendant. The presiding Justices gave judgment for the defendant.