County Council Hears More. About Manakau Dispute

Chronicle (Levin), 15 July 1948, Page 4

County Council Hears More. About Manakau Dispute

A much disputed feneq bounding property in th'e Manakau Riding was again diseussed by the Horowhenua County ■ Council v/hen a letter from a firm of solicitors, representing a ratepayer, Mr. W. G. Phillips, Manakau, was received at the monthly meeting yesterday. ' At the invitation of the council, the owner of the fence, Mr. 'A. 'V. Hornig, was present to give his reasons why the fence should inot be removed, as requested in a 'previous petition t'o the council. i The fence came to the notice of ,the council at a recent meeting when five Manakau residents, inciuaing Mr. Phillips, petitioned for its removal 011 the groundS that it constituted a public nuisance and impeded .the turning of traffic on a county road. Acting on'the petition, the council served notice on Mr. Hornig to have the fence removed within 30 days. The matter, however, did not end there as at the next meeting of the council three of the . original petitioners wrote seeking 'the retraction of their names from the petition oh ■ the grounds that they had been misinformed as to the circumstances. .The owner of the fence also wrote prctesting at the action and including in his letter a substantial list of names as a counter petition. After outlining the facts leading up to the dispute, the letter from Mr. Phillips' solicitors pointed out the right of all to use the King's highway. In this case a road had been blocked and Ihe rights of. at least one subject iniringed. Invited by the council to state his case, Mr. Hornig, who was pres- ' ent at the meeting, explained that his property had four frontages and I was surrounded by four county roads. Some years ago he had experienced a great deal of troubleiwith people taking spoil off a bank near his property and dumping rubbish down in a hollow formed between the road edge and his fence-line. In 1931 he had written to the council, asking for permission to erect a warning to - stop people from doing this. This request had been refused, but-it had been suggested that he shift his bound- . ary fence on to the freehold land ' n-ear 'the road. It was only last year when he had taken advantage of this, and he had put the fence along the top of thc bank. When the permission had been granted to him to take this action, • he had asked all his neighbours whether they had any oujection. None had been forthcoming and the fence had been eventually erected. In conclusion, he maintained that there was no truth in the petition forwarded by a firm of solicitors on behaif of Mr. Phillips. This was a most unfortunate case, commented the chairman, Mr. A. M. Colquhoun, when Mr. Hornig had retired. It was the opinion of Cr. W. G. Taylor that enough evidence was before the council for it to make a decision. This action was opposed by Cr. J. D. Aitchison, who maintained that as fresh evidence had been brought forward, the matter should be referred back to the works committee. The council had asked for a petition signed by five ratepayers and this had come forward, "out later three had withcirawn their signatures. i Cr. R. W. Jenkins said he thought the fence was doing no liarm where it*was, and that there would be no advantage in pulling it down. He moved that it should be left , where it was. j In seconding this "motion, Cr. E. |R. Winkler said -that he felt that the council should take some action. The council should be strong enough to rescind its previous finding. It was pointed out by the clerk, Mr. F. H. Hudson, - that notice of intention to rescind the previous decision would have to be given, and Cr. Jenkins' motion thercfore lapsed. • It was decided, on the motion of Cr. Aitchison, that the matter oe referred back to the works committee for further investigation.