PORT CHALMERS TOWN COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2029, 5 November 1869, Page 2

PORT CHALMERS TOWN COUNCIL.

{To the Editor of the Eveninq Star.) Sir,—A correspondent, who signed himself “ Another Ratepayer,” takes offence at “ A Ratepayer’s” letter, published in your paper of the 28th ult. I think it was a very fair statemt nt. It was no use to .question the acts of the old Town Board, either when borrowing money, or leaving us the legacy of a lawsuit, for the Board does not exist; but in their place we have a Council, whose duty was, if possible, to keep out of a lawsuit. In “Ratepayer’s” letter he said «o, and thus

he gave offence to “ Another Ratepayer,” whom, I presume, was a Councillor as well. Now, Sir, it was publicly stated by a member of the Council, when Mr Millar’s trustee’s threatened the action against the Council, it could have been arranged for L 25 or L3O, and we had a right to suppose he spoke the truth ; and had the Council, instead of trusting to reports from the old Town Board, as my opponent says in his letter thej r did, they could have allowed a more reasonable plan, by appointing that councillor and another good business man to have settled the matter, and have paid them their expenses. I, with many others, believe that would have ended the affair. But we -went to law, and “Another Ratepayer” says the result proves they wore right in doing so ; but I think otherwise. There was a verdict given aga ; nst us for L 25, and so we say we gained the cause, but what would it have been had we lost it—about LSOO to pay. Now comes our law expenses : Verdict ... ... ... ... L2o 0 0 Mr Mansford’s first account ... 8 Mr Barton’s account Vl9 6 L 275 19 2 Taxed off ... LB3 13 6 Mr Mansford to pay costs of taxation ... ... ... 8 17 6 Cash to Mr Mansford on account 112 12 0 L 205 2 8 £7O 16 6 Or thus — Balance due Mr Mansford ... 43 16 6 Verdict ... ... ... ... 23 0 0 £7O 10 6 Now, Sir, no provision was made for taxing the bill of costs, and the Finance Committee recommended the full amount to be paid. A motion -was made accordingly. Councillor Miller moved an amendment—three for the motion, five against it. Out of the five, two refused to vote, until told by H. AY. (the Mayor) they must vote. They then voted for the amendment, and, truly, thanks are due to Councillor Miller for saving the ratepayers a large sum of money. My opponent thinks not. At another meeting, one of the Finance Committee moved the suspension of the Standing Orders to get the minute expunged. There again Councillor Miller interfered, or the bill would not have been taxed. These are the facts, and yet “ Another Ratepayer” thinks 1 am wrong in speaking well of him for the firmness he showed. Well, Sir, the Council wish to borrow L 2,000. Have not the ratepayers a right to be careful how the money is spent; for L 2.000 at 10 per cent, is L2UO per year out of the rates. As for the coppy of lease for L 8 4s Bd, they will want a lawyer to coppy it.—Yours, &c., Placet. Port Chalmers, Nov. 4.