NASEBY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume 26, Issue 1369, 17 January 1896, Page 2

NASEBY BOROUGH COUNCIL

SPECIAL MEETING.

.A special meeting of the council was held on Friday evening, January 10th, to consider a resolution, notice of which was given at a previous meeting by Crs Glenn and Mitchell —"That Messrs Inder Bros.' request for permission to work portions of Oughter and Avoca-sueets be granted, subject to the Naseby Borough Council's approval of the bond and security to be given by Inder Bros., and upou such conditions as the council may impose ; also that the lower portion of Avocastreet be closed temporarily for traffic when necessary, after due notice to that effect has been given." Messrs F. R. Smith and R. L. Francis objected to the granting of the application unless a good and safe road be continuously kept open between the bridge and their respective residences in Oughter-street. Mr Thomas J. Francis asked that the council in granting permission to Messrs Inder Bros, to work the road would make provision to enable him to gaiu access to his stable from the bridge and also from his shop to the Etable. He would be prepared to accept any temporary road that was passable for his cart.

MrHerdman's opiniou on the subject was read.

His Worship said that it clearly showed that'the council had p ,wei to grant permission : all that was necessary was to obtain sufficient security. Or Inder said that Inder Bros, did not admit that the land between the Masonic Hall and the bridge was a road, and they would therefore not include it in the indemnity. They intended to place planks below the bridge across the Dead Level race for the heavy traffic and to make provision for crossing the said race above the bridge for horses and light traffic. Cr Evans contended that in face of the solicitor's opinion the road from the Masonic Hall to the bridge should be included in the indemnity, and that to make the proceedings legal they should advertise again, specifying that road aloug with Oughter and Avooastreets.

Cr Glenn was of opinion that as that road had been in use by the public for a verj long period it should certainly be included. Cr Ferguson said that permiss on to work the road had not been asked for, and was not before the council.

Cr Mitchell said that the road in question was not a surveyed street. Or Donnelly contended that after a road, if no more than a footpath, hail been in public use for a number of years it became a public road. Cr Inder quoted section 14 of the Land Act, 1891, and section 4 of the Mining Act, IS9I, in support of his argument that the ground referred to was not under the control of the corporation. Cr Glenn advised Inder Bros, to acknowledge the road and include it iu tho indemnity. Kis Worship gave it as his opinion that the ground was not a road, as it had been held by Brookes as a mining claim, and as an outlet for tailings by other parties, aud that therefore the public had no title to it. On tho moti u of Cr Ferguson, seconded by Cr Donnelly, it was agreed to adjourn the meeting for a week in order to enable councillors to meet the objectors and luder Bros, on the ground, for the purpose of trying to meet the wishes of both parties; that the council meet on the ground at 7 p.m. on Tuesday next.