LETTERS "NOT RECEIVED."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20366, 21 September 1929, Page 12

LETTERS "NOT RECEIVED."

OBJECTION TO TONE.

ACTION BY COUNTY COUNCIL.

Owing to the nature of their wording, two letters which came before the Waitemata County Council yesterday were not received.

The first letter was from a ratepayer of Brown's Bay who wrote with reference to tho state of Dunoon Road. The portion of tho letter objected to by members was a footnote complaining of the condition of the Manly Esplanade, The latter stated: "Will the Esplanade be finished before Christmas this year ? It was a disgrace to any member last Christmas and a bad advertisement to the bay and to the council." Mr. G. O'Halloran, member for the Takapuna Riding, said the tone of the letter, which was addressed to the chairman, was objectionable. He would be prepared to give a full explanation of the mattors raisod by the writer but, under the circumstances, he was not prepared to do this. On his motion, it was decided "that tho letter be not received." The writer of the second letter was a rcsidont of Glen Eden who had recently been dismissed from the council's employment. He stated that ho had not received the first letter from the county engineer giving notice of dismissal. The letter statod inquiries had been made _at •tho post office and from the mail carrier as to the whereabouts of .the engineer's letter, but no information could be given: Stating it was the first letterhe had known go astray, the writer asked tho council'for particulars how it was sent. Ho continued:-—, . v . i "■The reason given for' my, dismissal: was that another mart, was more in need of st9ady. omßloymont than I was. When; the -council camo to this decisioh did, they know that the man to .be employed had left his recent employment' and had; purchased four sections from a councillor on 'deforrcd payment? Would you -Sallow; mo to see the minute of tho meeting when this decision .was arrived at?"' . Reasons , for the dismissal of the employee were given by the riding member concerned, Mr, W. Potter. He' said the new employee- had -purchased only one section from him. He was known as a steady worker. Mr. Potter objected to the v tone of the letter and it was decided not to- receive' it." . " v ,