Thames County Council.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8862, 12 October 1897, Page 3

Thames County Council.

MR BAG .NALL’S GRIEVANCES.

(To the Editor.)

Sib,—l regret that 1 have again to appeal to your columns to correct statements put forth by the Council concerning myself, as I know the County Chairman objects to my writing to the Press about the cruel treatment received by the people of Turua from the County Council. I will here, with your permission, say that 1 have not wiitten a .'ine, except to correct statements or to set forth facts concerning the unfair way we have been treated ,Sor would I trouble you now except tor the same reason. At the last meeting ot the Council a letter of mine was read complaining of excepih.iiai treatment in imposing a tine of ten per centum for non-payment of rates while a large number of other ratepayers similarly situated had not been so punished The Chairman said this bad not been done by the Council, but by the Court. In the first place, the matter never came before the Court, so that I fail to see what the court had to do with it ; but in the second place I quote from the summons in the case between the Thames County Council and L. J. Bagnall, as follows : Par, 2 —“ Plaintiffs (Thames County Council) also claim to recover from the defendant the further sum of seven pounds and three shillings, being interest at the rate of ten pounds per centum payable upon the above-men-tioned rates by reason of their having remained unpaid for a period of six months from the date at which the same first, became recoverable from the defendant.” Par. 4 is to the same effect, and claims four pounds fifteen shilling by the same plaintiffs and for the same reason.

If this were not done by the Council, words mean nothing when set out in proper legal form in a summons. This summons was issued from the court on the 30th of March 1897. On July 20th there appeared in your columns a notice over the name of the clerk and treasurer of the Council, that, “ten per cent will be added to the amount of overdue rates unless paid on or before the 31st inst.” Was it fair to charge me ten per cent on the SOth March and give other people to the 31st of July before being so charged 7 Yet the “ sensible ” members of the Thames County I Council in solemn conclave resolve i “ that the Council’s treatment of Mr I Bagnall is not exceptional ” and ex- ■ pact the public to believe them. Be it 1 understood, sir, that I do not object to I the ten per cent, ‘ the law allows it ’ i and I have doubt if it had come before I the court, they wou 1J award it. What I I do object to is that the C«Ug«il

should show favo rto some ratepayers by not charging Inal which by law I contend they should have done. Regarding Cr McEnteer’a remark about “ blowing,” this is a pastime in which I seldom indulge. The people of Turua look to me to represent their wants to the Council Tu.-ugh I pay the gross rates they all contribute. My success in the past is nothing to "blow” about. Out of some £7OO paid by us in rates only £3O has been granted by the Council. The population of Turua is nearly equal to that of the Waiotahi Riding, while wwpay nearly three times as much in rates as Waiotahi, yet the Waiotahi Biding has two members in the Council to assist that body in forcing our rates from us, and expending them for the benefit of the district they represent. If the Council had faithfully carried out the law regarding the representation of the County, Waiotahi would not be entitled to one representative, much less two.

Apologising for trespassing so much upon your valuable spice.—l ara, etc., I. J. Baonall. Turua, 9th October.