CONFERENCE OF ROAD BOARD CHAIRMEN.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 78, 31 August 1874, Page 4

CONFERENCE OF ROAD BOARD CHAIRMEN.

A meeting of the committee appointed at a conference of Road Board Chairmen held some time since, took place on Saturday last at Warner’s Hotel. Present —Messrs Bridge (in the chair), Potts, J. N. Tosswill. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr Potts laid on the table a copy of the Roads Ordinance of Otago, forwarded by the Hon Mr Reynolds. The only province from which they had not received a copy of the Ordinance was Hawke’s Bay. Mr Bridge stated that he had telegraphed the substance of the result of the last meetmeeting, and a resolution passed at that meeting as to the status of Road Boards, and pressing the necessity of legislation in the matter. He had received the following reply from the Secretary of Public Works, covering a memo from the Superintendent and the Attorney-General’s opinion : “ Public Works Office, “August 18th, 1874. “ Sir, —I am directed to forward, for your information, copy of a memo, addressed by his Honor the Superintendent to the bon Colonial Treasurer, relative to the AttorneyGeneral’s opinion in the case of the Ellesmere Road Board v Fisher, and an endorsement thereon by the Attorney-General having further reference to the matter. “ I have, &c., “Thos, W. Maude, “ Sec. for Public Works. “ C. J. Bridge, Esq., “ Chairman Ellesmere Road Board.” [Memo for Hon, Colonial Treasurer.] “ The Attorney-General, in a case submitted to him in the recess by one of the Road Boards in Canterbury, gave it as his opinion that ‘ The Road Board, having no property in the road vested in them, have no right of action, and have sustained no injury for which damages can be recovered.’ “ It is very desirable that the power of the Road Boards in respect of roads should be clearly defined, for purposes of instituting and sustaining actions where damage has been caused. “ In the case referred to the Road Board attempted to insist upon an adjoining proprietor allowing the water from the road to take its natural fall through his fence and property. It was decided that they had -no loons standi for the purpose. I believe that a clause might be advantageously introduced into the Highway Boards Act now before the House, giving powers of action in such case. “ W. Rolleston, “ Superintendent of Canterbury. ENDORSEMENT OP ATTORNEY-GENERAL. “ The proper Legislature is an amendment of the Provincial Act, imposing penalties on persons injuring the roads, drains, &c. It was the absence of such provision that induced the Board to sue for damages in a civil action. The Provincial Act might also give a right of action for compensation for injury done. I see no necessity for more than this. “ J. Prendegast. “29th July, 1874. The chairman then read a letter from the South Malvern Road Board, informing the committee that it was the opinion of that Board that the Roads Ordinance should be revised, and the powers of the Boards more clearly defined. The secretary (Mr Potts) stated that he had forwarded printed copies of the report of the case of Fisher v the Ellesmere Road Board, and of the Lyttelton Times, containing a report of the last meeting of the committee, to every member of the Legislature. Mr Tosswill said, that from the AttorneyGeneral’s opinion it appeared to him to be a hopeless attempt to try to get legislation in the General Assembly as to the status of Road Boards. The Attorney-General’s opinion was that the Provincial Council could do the work. Therefore he thought that they should take this into consideration while engaged in revising the Act, and making suggestions for the necessary amendments, and it would perhaps be as well if they had a resolution on the subject. The chairman thought that it would not be able to be brought before the General Assembly this session, though, in his opinion, if they wanted a title to the road they would have to go to the General Assembly, otherwise the only remedy they would have would be in a similar method as ordinary trespass. Mr Potts thought it was not in the power of the Council to legislate upon this matter. He was of opinion that if they did so their action would at once be condemned as ultra vires, Mr Tosswill would desire to point out that the opinion of the Attorney-General, as given in the memo from - his Honor the Superintendent, was, that the requisite alterations were to be made by the Provincial Council. The committee then proceeded to consider the recommendations of the various Boards throughout the province for the amendment of the Ordinance. After a short discussion, Mr Tosswill moved —“ That a digest of the recommendations of the several Road Boards as to alterations in the existing Roads Ordinance, be prepared by the chairman for consideration at the next meeting of the committee.” Mr Potts seconded the motion, which was carried. The meeting then adjourned to Tuesday, the Bth September, at noon.