ACCOUNT DISPUTED BY SUMNER COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 185, 6 August 1931, Page 9

ACCOUNT DISPUTED BY SUMNER COUNCIL.

TERMS OF AN OLD ACT ADVANCED AS REASON. A demand from the Christchurch City Council for £5 12s 9d from the Sumner Borough Council towards the painting of the lieathcote Bridge has been disputed by the Sumner council. Its grounds for refusal to «pav dates back to the times when the bridge was built as a swing bridge to allow river traffic to pass through. The Sumner borough claims that the design of the bridge has been fundamentally altered from a swing bridge to an ordinary traffic bridge not capable of allowing river traffic to *ass through. It is contended that the claim does not involve only the actual sum of £5 claimed, but that the council would be liable if any ship owner demanded the right of way on the river as required under an old Act, if the sum was paid. The matter was argued out before Mr 11. A. Young, S.M., in the Civil Court this morning between Mr Loughnan, for the City Council, and Mr White, for the Sumner Borough Council. The Magistrate reserved his decision. The two local bodies have had litigation over the same question p._viously. A Ferry Bridge. The statement of claim set out that by warrant in 1905 the then GovernorGeneral directed that the bridge, known as the ferry bridge over the Heathcote river from Christchurch to Sumner, should after that date be under the exclusive care and control of the Woolston Borough Council; and determined that 11.65 per cent of the cost of maintaining the bridge should be borne by the Sumner Borough Council. By virtue of the incorporation of the Woolston Borough in the Christchurch City Council, the property and control of the bridge was vested in the City Council.

About October 20, 1930, the plaintiff corporation painted the bridge at the cost of £29, of which amount the sum of £l2 10s was the proportion payable by Sumner. Defendant had refused to pay the amount. Mr White said the matter was more serious than the claim for £5. The design of the bridge, since the time of its construction, has been altered so much that the provisions of the warrant were nullified. “We can’t afford to pay and invite the argument that the payment of anything toward the bridge was an acquiescence, in the alteration which had been made to the bridge without the consent of the borough council, or without it even being consulted in the matter,” said Mr White. The design of the bridge had been fundamentally altered so that now no shipping could pass up the river. There was a case years ago where a master of a vessel had to be paid to waive his claim to go up the river. It was likely to be an expensive thing i for the council if it acquiesced in the arrangement. The Sumner Borough had had nothing to do with the alteration of the bridge.