COUNTY CLERK V. WHITAKER, RUSSELL, AND BUDDLE.

Thames Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 7081, 13 January 1892, Page 2

COUNTY CLERK V. WHITAKER, RUSSELL, AND BUDDLE.

(To the Editor of the Evening Stab.)

Sir,—ln the report of County Conncil proceedings in yonr edition of Thursday last, in reply to Cr Dunlop as to whether the Council bad the right to fence off the water-race on Block 27, the Clerk is reported to have replied that the Conncil had such a right. Now, as against the response given by the- County Clerk, we will give the opinion of Messrs Whitaker, Russell, and Buddie, who reported on the question of the water-race on Block 27 as follows:—" A right to maintain a waterrace through part of the property has been granted to the Crown by the leaseholders and occupiers whose lots abut on the water-race." These leases expired in 1889 and 1890. There is only one part of Block 27 that we know of where the Thames County Council would be permitted to erect a fence. "We will be particular in describing the exact locality, ao that the Council may make no mistake. The allotments are Nos. 565 and 640, Block 27, of the township of Shortland, lots that the Thames County Council hold of us under lease, one of the conditions of the lease being that the County shall fence when requested by us to do so. The lots include land not only on b«th sides of the water-race, but the race itself. Now, the idea of the Thames County Conncil claiming the freehold of land, a portion of which they afterwards leased by deed from us, is, to say the least, somewhat inconsistent and ridiculous. If Messrs Whitaker and Co. are correct in their opinion, the Crown must be indebted to us for one or two years' rent according to fche termination of the various leases under which the Government holds its rights. About twelve months' ago we rendered an account to the Thames County Council for rent of allotments in their occupation. The Council did not dispute using the allotments^ but got rid of its liability on the ground that they had not created a tenancy, We are of opinion that the General Gofert^. ment would not descend to such a degrading^ though legal, defence, as was dona by oat looai governing body on that occasion.—-Wa are, &c, Jopij 4NB WII4.TAU Murdoch.