MISSING BRIDGE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22504, 23 February 1935, Page 19

MISSING BRIDGE

COUNCILLOR’S UNENVIABLE POSITION / A good deal of concern was expressed at the Waitaki County Council meeting yesterday at the disappearance of material from an old bridge in the Ahuriri Riding, which has been replaced by a new bridge, and at Cr W. E. Aubrey’s unenviable position: in. not being able to carry out the council’s promise to have the old bridge removed to a site higher up to serve other settlers, because the old bridge had disappeared. -Considerable discussion ensued on the subject, which was finally held over pending an investigation and report to the next meeting of the council. ■ In reply to Cr Aubrey, the engineer (Mr G. L. Cuthbertson) stated that the old bridge at Deep Creek had disappeared. The Public Works Department had built-a new bridge there, and the old bridge was to have been re-erected by settlers higher up. Cr Aubrey had given him a rather alarming report that the old bridge had disappeared altogether, as a result of which he had got-in touch with Mr Alecock, of the Public Works Department at Waitaki Hydro, who reported that to save expense''to the council a good deal of material of the old bridge had been built into the new bridge, but the piles and some rails and railings had gone, It was the first time, said Mr Cuthbertson,' that he had lost a bridge, in the county except through an act of God. In taking the piles out, the groyne had been damaged, and he understood that in view_ of assistance with meals and accommodation to the department’s' employees, permission had been given for the removal of certain material, but he considered that the rails and piles should be paid for. Mr Packwood had understood that the old bridge was to have-been removed to a site higher up, but he had gone away, and,, no doubt, had not mentioned the fact .to his successor, and he (Mr Cuthbertson) had not thought of mentioning it to Mr'Alecock, who; he was sure, had acted, in good faith; , % Cr ‘Aubrey- said the contract was let for- a new. bridge at . something like £6OO, and he did not .think the public works Employees had any right to meddle With the old bridge. He : arid- the engineer had promised that the old bridge would be removed to Birch Creek at Ben Avon, where it was to be re-elected by Mr M‘Leod. -It had been promised to these settlers, and. they were entitled to a bridge. Someone had gone beyond his duty. He thought the council had paid quite a sufficient price for the. new bridge,, and he. was not .concerned who got the -old bridge, blit thought the settlers were -entitled'to'a bridge over Birch Creek; ' The material- in Hhe Old bridge belonged to the council. It should not have been given away;-- -;. vj • ■ Mr Cuthbertson. pointed out that Mr, Alecockacted in . good .faith -in,.using material from the old bridge, to cheapen the cost of the new' one. ' Cr Aubrey said another bridge was erected over Deep Creek on the Canterbury side, and there they had been stopped from interfering with tne old bridge. He bad been, left in a very awkward position indeed, . as if the settlers had .recreated, the bridge, as bp. was sure Mr, M^Lepcl' would, nave donfe, they would have- done the council a good turn. "■■' 1 Dealing, with the cost of the newhndge, it was pointed nut : that tbere waa no definite contract,, and the • price would probably be less than .£6OO, the account not yet having been received from the department. ' - A suggestion that the, matter should be left in the hands of the engineer for further investigation brought the remark from Cr Aubrey, that it should not be left to the engineer, but should be dealt with by the whole council. When asked to . investigate v the matter further, Cr Aubrey retorted that be declined to do detective work. He would be sorry, if anyone got into trouble, but he had a duty to the ratepayers, and-they wanted the hridgd J hack:He‘ moved that the Public "Works Department should be asked to' erect a bridge over Birch Creek in lieu of the hiissing bridge.—This was seconded by, Cr Smith. - - The chairman suggested, that,yr Aubrey and . the. .engineer should- see 1 the. new bridge and report to the nest meeting. Pr Kodman also maintained they could reach no definite conclusion without the fullest details. He moved as an amendment that the chairman, Cr Aubrey, and the engineer make the fullest inquiries and report to the;next meeting.—Cr Meek seconded the amendment, which was carried by five votes to three. .... ■-- ■ !" “ 7T ' CRICKET ? Teams for to-day:— . ... • • Union Juniors v. Albion, b at Takaro Park.—Walter Budd, Crombie, Doig, H. Ewing, King, Park, . Rawstorn, Robertson, Somerville, Spear, Stark. Union; Third Grade v. School, at KingGeorge’s Park. —Arnott, Brooks, C. Ewing, E. Ewing,. Falloon, Hedges, Harwood, Lochart, Martyn, Taylor, Wheeler. Albion Juniors v. r ,Union. —North, Cooney, Farrarit, Brewster, Broenahan, May, Grimmeft, Sievers, Robertson, Dexter,- Stewart. : ■■ ■■ ’ • '■ Oamaru Juniors.—Brooker, (2), Bee (2), Robertson, • Kelk, Cahill, A.-Pater-son, Meikle, Francis, Brown.