Correspondence.

Feilding Star, Volume XV, Issue 340, 15 June 1894, Page 2

Correspondence.

TO THE KD!T«>R OF THE STAM. £ir, — From romnrk3 that have been made it appears that some people consider I am making a good thing out of tho Council for allowing a road through my property. Poilmps they may have boon misled by n pur that , appeared in your paper some time back which stated that the deviation was made through Mr Carr's property to tho ford, and then through mine, and therefore kindly nllow me space to state the facts of the case. The road mentioned is through Mr Carr's pro- ' perty two and a half chains in length ; j then through mine five and a half i chains to the ford. After crossing the I ford ton and a half chains through mine again, coming out on to the piece of land bought by the Borough from Mr J. Norman some time ago, for which I am to receive £30 from the Council, which gives them the right to take a road anywhere they choose without any further cost as to fencing, damage, or removing fences, after they discontinue using the road ; and I have to erect about twenty-eight chains of fencing before I can make use of the land thrown open. Although all my fence on the south side of the river was washed away, I would not have to replace it as the flood left a steep cliff right up to Mr Carr's fence, and at the north side five chains would have replaced all the fence washed away. The quantity of land taken is about half a chain through Mr Carr's property and from one to two and a half chains through mine. Of course it is not all required for the road, but I would have to erect a lot of fencing to make use of it and have to remove it again at the expiration of the time and, I may say, although no part of the bargain, I have allowed gravel to be taken from my property to metal all the road both sides of the river whereas if they had taken the metal from the riverbed the work would have cost twice as much as it is now doing. I am, etc, W. B. Retemeyer. Feilding, 13th June, 1894.