GERALDINE COUNTY COUNCIL BRIDGES.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6245, 18 June 1890, Page 2

GERALDINE COUNTY COUNCIL BRIDGES.

[to the editor.]

Sxa, —There is one very important point ■which has been overlooked in reference to the Geraldine County Council not keeping in repair our bridges. Messrs Smithson and Raymond eay in their legal opinion to the Council:—“To leave an insecure bridge open for traffic is to court disaster,” “ and in the event of a casualty resulting through the disrepair, anyone injured in person or property could hold the council liable in damages.” “The legislature has provided the council with the means of effecting such repairs.” “The 1 closing of the bridge, we are of opinion, would be a broach of duty." I understand the ratepayers south of Timaru request the council to maintain the present bridge over the Pareora, and sooner than do that they have allowed an action to be brought against them for not putting in repair the bridge as a traffic bridge. The important point now comes: .Who is to pay the legal expenses incurred by the Geraldine County Council ? Are wo ratepayers to pay it, or the members of the council to pay it out of their own pocket ? Certain ratepayers who bring this action will have to pay their own costs ; it seems a shame if they have also to pay their share of the council’s running in opposition to them and their legal advisers as well. I should not be surprised myself if the expenses of this trial appear in the balance-

sheet of the council next year. Some ratepayer or other will feel inclined to dispute its being there. Who knows whether the council will be satisfied with the judgment to be given in tho present case, but may feel disposed to take it to a higher court, thereby running up a very heavy bill against the wish of tho ratepayers. Tho wisest thing for the council to do at once would be to resign their seats end let a fresh body be elected who would grasp the situation and give the ratepayers what they ask for without their going to law and spending our hard-earned money as they did in the case of Silcock v. G.O. Council.

I can’t understand why the council wish to give us only stock bridges over certain rivers ond not traffic bridges. Surely heavy agricultural implements are of as much importance to the community at large as taking stock over the rivers. It seems to me that making stock bridges and not traffic bridges is like selling class against class, which wo should all try to avoid. A man goes to England and brings out some very heavy piece of machinery. It arrives safely hero, it is drayed down, we will say, as far as tho Pareora river, there being only a stock bridge there. In attempting to cross it breaks down in the shingle bed, and he has to send to England for certain parts of it. Is that fair or just to the enterprising farmer ?

I am, &c.,

0. G. Tripp.