Untitled

Northland Age, Volume 28, Issue 52, 20 June 1928, Page 3

.(To '1 he Editor) Sir, —Kindly allow me space to answerer Paton’s letter of some weeks ago, the reason for delay in answering this, is, that as Mr Paton states that the County Chairman promised that the grazing account would be paid. I thought that probably Mr Long and Mr Paton may have had an ’interview after he waited on the Council. As I said before, the Council did not promise to stand good for this account in my presence. Further if such a case had existed a resolution to that effect would have been on the books. Now Mr Editor does it not seem strange to you that if the Council had promised Mr Paton to pay this account, would not Mr Paton have forwarded his account to the Clerk at the termination of the metal hauling ? This was not done, but Mr Paton sued Spy Henry and got judgment for amount claimed, about £62, not £126 as stated by your correspondent ol April nth. Your ratepayer of that date, tried to show the ioss to the ratepayers on account of the Council breaking faith (which I do not admit), that is what I replied to, stating therein that there was no loss, as the metal got from Maugham’s was as gcod and cheaper, or at least as cheap, and you will note that his figures, £126, do not coinside with Mr Paton’s £62, although quite as accurate as in another portion of his letter, where he quotes 4/6 per chain against 14/6. However your readers will notice that Mr Paton was not worrying over the ratepayer.-, interests, it was his private account. The day that Mr I -.ton waited on the Council, Mr jack Stewart was present and I myself heard him tell Mr Paton his account would be paid. Evidently Mr Paton has mixed individuals. Now this challenge of £5 I am prepared to allow the challenger to withdraw it it he wishes, for the reason he is under a misaprehension.. I am etc Douglas Kitchen