BRUCE COUNTY COUNCIL

Otago Witness, Issue 1598, 8 July 1882, Page 22

BRUCE COUNTY COUNCIL

Tho meeting of this Council which was held ''at Milton on Tuesday was attended by the Chairman and-Crs Robertson, Wilson, Duff, Calder, Petrie, and Murray. REPORTS. The Inspector reported that the roads continued in good repair, though a few slips had occurred in some of the side cuttings. Slight repairs had been effected by the surfacemen to the, Taieri and Milburn bridges. i CORRESPONDENCE. Mr J. Moore, of Clarksville, wrote stating that the Council were no doubt aware of the difficulty in which he was placed through-the action, or rather the inaction, of the Tokomairiro Licensing Committee, He had applied for a renowal of the bottle license held by him for so many years, but it had neither been granted nor refused. He respectfully asked for a temporary license from the Council. — The Chairman stated this to be a very hard case, and even admitting the proceedure to be illegal, he would be in favour of granting Mr Moore a temporary license. — Messrs Dutfi? and Petrie protested against such a course being followed. —lt was resolved to grant Mr Moore & temporary license for three months. Aletter from the Railway Department, to the effect that the authorities would send timber &nd men for the purpose of erecting a crane at Titri station, was read and received. In answer to a communication from the Minister of Justice, asking for information regarding the expenses of putting the Licensing Act into force in the county, the Clerk stated that he had replied that up to theSlst May the expenses had amounted to £74 12s Sd.— The Chairman said the total expenses would in all i likelihood amount to £100. Sergeant Finnigan asked for travelling ex- ] penses in connection with putting the Licen- | sing Act in force in the outlying districts.— lt ; was decided to pay the applicant at the rate of j 6s per visit— £3 in all. A letter was received from Mr Rutherford, \ M.H.R., who, though he could say nothing | ." definite regarding the granting of a vote for the Taieri bridge, augured that the Govern- . ment would favourably entertain the proposal. The Clerk of the Waipori Road Board wrote , asking the Council to withhold their consent from tne amalgamation of their Maungatua subdivision with the Taieri County. This application was based on the ground that the county had not complied with section 7 of " The Counties Act Amendment Act, 1880."— As the Board did not proceed in the' proper way, by sending in a petition in terms of the Act, it was decided to ignore the communication, as having no weight whatever. DEPUTATION. A deputation, consisting of Messrs W. M. Shore and Wm, Kelly, members of 'the Kaitangata Town Board, waited on tie Council with a view (1) of placing before its members tho claims of the Town Board to a refund of all the publicans' licenses and dog registration fees collected within the town district since the 29th March last ; (2) the propriety of allowing the Board to have the jetty opposite the site of the old saw-mill removed ; (3) to have the bridge over the Kaitacgata Creek removed. Mr Shore pointed out that the Town Board was established in the firm belief that that Board would receive all the fees accruing from such sources as had been mentioned. The Taieri County Council had allowed the town boards within that county to collect these fees, and he thought in the present instance the Town Board had the best claim on the license fees. Regarding the jetty, it was quite rotten, and of no use whatever.

The Chairman stated that there was still some doubt as to which body was entitled to the publicans' license fees, and ho did not feel justified in allowing them to go to the Town Board. It would bo for the Council, to take Borne steps to ascertain where these fees had to go. The Licensing Act was not very definite regarding the matter. His own opinion was that the fees belonged to the County Council. He was afraid Mr Shore would not be, able to convince him that they should go to the Town Board.

A copy of a letter from G. S. Cooper, assistant undersecretary, to the Outram Town Board was read. This communication stated that the town boards were entitled to the license fees issued in their district.

Mr Shore pointed out that if tho license was 1 ' paid to the county it was only £25, whereas if it was paid to the Town Board it

was £40. One publican at Kaitangita had taken the i:>recaution to pay the fee to both bodies, so that when the matter was finally settled he was sure to be on the right side. The other publican had not taken this Erecaution, and in the event of the point eing decided in favour of the Town Board this unfortunate publican would in rill probability lose his license. The Chairman thought that would be a, gross injustice to that publican. It was manifestly unfair to take an advantage of a man in such a way.' After a little further discussion, it was decided to test the claim by a friendly lawIt was decided to hand over the old jetty anrl bridge'to the Town Board. The question of repairing the damage caused by the late flood to the road at Kaitangata VIM then mooted. It was stated that the work would cost about £150. The Chairman thought the people of Kaitanga had acted rather foolishly in taking up (pc position they did. They were now, he t > raght, quite independent of the County 0 until. Mr Pimuß'was in favour of granting the Town Boavd £50 towards repairing the road. He thought it was a special case, and moved accordingly. On referring to the Act the Ciiatkman pointed out that the matter was quite plain there. The town boards were subject to, and continued to be, portions of the county. It was ultimately decided to allow the matter to stand in abeyance till the settlement of the licensing fee question. GEM: HAL.

With references Lo the application of the KailangaU Town ."Board, it w^is resolved — " That the clerk inspect the damaged portion

of the road there, and if he think it really necessary, that he expend a sum not exceeding £50 in protective works ; the said sum to be refunded to the Council in the event of the decision of the Magistrate being favourable to the Town Board regarding the point at issue in connection with the licensing fees.