WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 53, 5 March 1943, Page 4

WAIMANA CONTROVERSY

Sir,—l have read Mr Kirkbride's letter appearing in the Beacon o£ the 26t.1i ulto. under the heading Waimana Controversy, and feel tlrfit in justice to the County Solicitor, I should immediately correct the erroneous impression Mr Kirkbride's remarks made. Mr Kirkbride alleges that jn the explanation, which, the County Soli-i citor made to the Council on matters concerning Kirkbride's Road, he, the County Solicitor, omitted (and the inference is that he; deliberately omitted) to mention the one item which was (as Mr Kirkbride expresses it) "the. crux of the whole matter." Mr Kirkbride then goes on to explain that this item refers to a certain letter which the County Clerk forwarded to Mr Kirkbride on the 30th January 1941, and he says: "Without doubt a similar notice was forwarded to the County Solicitor. Notwithstanding this notification the County Solicitor failed to notify the Minister of Public Works that, the land was required for the protection of the bridge etc.'" Now Sir, had Mr Kirkbride used ordinary prudence and before publishing this statement, accepted the County Solicitor's offer and perused the County Solicitor's file in this matter, he would have found that a copy of the letter in question was never forwarded to the County Solicitor. For. Mr Kirkbride's information. I can say that the County Solicitor never receives his instructions from the County Council, in matters affecting the dedication of roads, etc., until the relative j)lan has been approved by the Chief Surveyor. Not' even for Mr Kirkbride does, the Council propose to alter this pro-* cedure. The initial legal instructions, in this matter were sent to tlie County Solicitor on the 24th Ju>ne 1941 accompanied by the Survey Plan and Schedules, which had been prepared by a Hamilton Surveyor and approved by the Lands and Survey Department in the interim, and which Plan and Schedules clearly showed than an area of la. 2r., 6d. was to be taken for road purposes and la. 2r. I,'ip. for "Plantation" purposes. The County Solicitor proceeded accordingly and completed his action within four months, which was well under, the normal time usually required to complete this type of. action under the Public Works Act. lin answer to certain representa-* tions by Mr Kirkbride, the County Solicitor recently voluntarily made to the Council the explanation to which Mr Kirkbride refers, and which dealt with the position step by step from the date; of the initial legal instructions, and such explanation was entirely satisfactory to the Council. In making this statement, I\ should like to say that I have, departed from the Council's strict rule of not acknowledging newspaper correspondence, because in this instance, I feel l that it has become necessary to refute Mr Kirkbride's allegations without delay, so that injustice to Mr Hamerton and possibly injury to his private practice may be avoid-* ed as much as possible. Yours etc*, J. L. BURNETT, County Chairman,.