BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 445, 17 November 1875, Page 2

BOROUGH COUNCIL.

LYTTELTON. Monday, November 15. Present—His Worship the Mayor, Crs Chalmers, Hawkins, Buist, Parsons, W. Graham, H. Allwright, F. Graham, and P. Cunningham. Ihe clerk stated he had received during the week £7 15s. Correspondence was read from the town clerk of Timaru, asking what salary the Borough Council paid to their engineer, and whether that officer received any commission or fee in addition to salary. From Mr R, Walton, of the Victoria Fire and Marine Insurance Company, asking the clerk to fill up form enclosed, with particulars as to appliances to extinguish fires, &c. His Worship said no doubt the fire inspector could give the necessary information. From Mr C. Cuff, saying he had at last surveyed that part of the bridle path of which he had been able to procure anything like reliable data, and had forwarded to foreman of works such information as would enable him to find the pegs, and stating the delay had been caused by his endeavoring to gain further information as to the subdivivision of rural section 40. From Mr John Murray, asking to rent the old weighbridge office as a dwelling house from the Council. From Mr George Garrard, also applying to rent the same building. Cr Hawkins asked if the building was to remain in its present position in St David’s street. The Mayor replied in the affirmative, and, after further discussion, Cr Chalmers moved—“ That the matter be left to the estates committee.” Or nawkins said he thought the building should not be left on St David street, at the end of Norwich Quay, as it would not be fair to those living in that street, certainly the principal business street of the town. Cr Allwright pointed out that if a private individual had moved the house he would have had to sheath it with iron. The Council certainly ought to be the last to set such a bad example. Cr Hawkins coincided in this. Cr Buist thought all this should have been remembered before the house was moved, Cr Allwright did not remember that any authority had been given to the estates committee to do it. On reference to the minutes it was found there was no formal resolution to that effect on the minutes, but it was stated by several Councillors that it was distinctly understood the matter should be left to the estates committee. Cr Chalmers added to his resolution—- “ That the house s'hould be placed in a line with the other houses on Norwich Quay.” This was seconded by Cr Parsons, and carried, From Mr J, S, Willcox offering to undertake to compile a valuation for 1876 on the basis of the block plan in possession of the Council, to be completed by January Ist, 1876, and also to attend to defend valuation in Resident Magistrate’s Court for a sum of twenty guineas. The Mayor said he had spoken to Mr Willcox on the subject, and this letter was the result. Cr P. Cunningham moved, and Or F. Graham seconded —“That Mr J. S. Willcox’s offer be accepted. Cr Hawkins thought the price was a most reasonable one. After a few further remarks from Cr Chalmers, the motion was carried unanimously. His Worship said there was a letter from the Borough solicitor on the table, in reference to the culvert through the Albion property, which he thought it wculd be inadvisable to make public,

Cr Hawkins said that the matter should be seen to at once, as if neglected it might cause the loss of several hundred pounds. A report of the foreman of works was then read. It ran as follows:—“ I beg to report that the weighbridge office has been removed to the site pointed out by the estates committee on Norwich Quay. The tanks have been placed in position ready to receive the water as soon ns the truck tanks are ready. I have not seen any railway officials, and so do not know if they are ready or not. The repairs have been at the bathing shed, and the road repaired as pointed by "the bathing committee. I beg to give an approximate estimate for taking up and relaying the stone culvert in Winchester street. I estimate the whole cost at about £65.” Cr Buist asked if the water could be diverted from Winchester street into Grubb’s gully without the consent of the parties owning property there. Cr Chalmers advocated a brick culvert. Cr F. Graham moved the adjournment of the debate till next Monday night. His Worship said the sub-committee would do their best to bring up a report on the matter next Monday. Cr Buist seconded the motion, which was carried. Cr P. Cunningham said that the parties owning property in the course of the proposed diversion should be written to on the matter. This was agreed to. Accounts were passed amounting to £8 6s, Cr Buist asked how it was the Borough Council had lost the case against Mr West for borough rates. The clerk stated that judgment was given against the Council because the rate-roll was not dated. On reference to the roll it was found that though not dated at the top of the page, it was at the end. In answer to a question from Cr Buist, the foreman of works stated that the cost of removing the old weighbridge office had already reached nearly £l3, and it will cost at least £5 or £6 more before it could be made habitable; in his opinion it would cost more than it was worth. In reference to the water supply from the Heathcote Valley, Cr Hawkins stated that he heard it was proposed to make a concrete bottom to the well, which was now thirty-eight feet deep, and then drive a number of artesian wells that would all discharge into the main well. It was necessary to speak on this matter, as they could not expect to get their plant in less than six or seven months after it was ordered from home. The Council then adjourned.