Huntly Bridge Commission.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 4, 24 December 1915, Page 3

Huntly Bridge Commission.

On Thursday last, Mr W. S. Short sat at the Courthouse at Huntly as a commission to allocate the cost of the upkeep of the deck of the Huntly bridge. The parties interested are the | Raglan and Waikato County Councils and the Huntly Town Board.

In opening the commission, Mr Short gave some interesting facts with regard to the allocation of bridges of this class, pointing out that the question of control was not involved, as, in all cjses where trains were running across bridges, the Railway Department assumed entire control. What the commission had to do, therefore, was to make enquiry and to find out as nearly as possible how much the inhabitants of each Local District used the Bridge and the proportion each should therefore pay to repair the wear and tear on the decking. He pointed out also, that as a rule, the Railway Department made an annual charge for the upkeep of these bridges usually two shillings per lineal foot. As the bridge is 998 ft long, the cost of upkeep on this basis, would be £99 18s Od per annum. In addition, where a bridgekeeper was employed half his salary would be charged and allocated among the Local Bodies in the same proportion as the charge for upkeep. He pointed out that a tally of the traffic over and under the bridge had been taken for a period of ten days. This tally showed roughly that the traffic by Raglan people amounted to a little over 50 per cent, Huntly a a little under 50 per cent and Waikato only one or two per cent. In the absence of evidence to show that the tally did not reveal the true position, the allocation would be made on the basis of the tally. To avoid unnecessary cost and delay, be he recommended an adjournment of the Court and a conference between the Local Bodies, with a view to a settlement. This being readily agreed to, the court adjourned for an hour. For the purpose of the conference Mr J. P. Bailey was appointed chairman, but the first few minutes revealed the fact that the views of the various bodies were so divergent, that there was no possibility of an agreement. The Commission therefore resumed and proceeded to take evidence, the Local Bodies being represented as follows : Waikato County, Mr Mac Diarmid with him T. B. Insoll (County Clerk), Raglan County, Mr Marsland (County Clerk), and with him Mr C. Johnson (County Chairman), Huntly Town Board, Mr J. Robertson, and with him Mr F. Harris. There jvere present also Mr J. P. Bailey A. Ross, and T. Paterson (Waikato County), and Mr Civil (Raglan County Engineer). The evidence called by Raglan tried to prove that the Bridge was of no use to the Raglan County, that the Council had consistently opposed its erection, and that it had been built entirely for the good of Huntly and the inhabitants thereof. In cross examination however, Mr A. McKinnon (Member of the Raglan County Council), admitted that he was the chief agitator for the erection of the Bridge, and that he had agitated on behalf of the settlers in the Raglan County.

The evidence for the Waikato County went to show that little or no Waikato traffic passed over the Bridge and that therefore they should be charged only a nominal annual sum. Their chief witness Mr A. Ross, however, admitted that there was considerable cattle traffic between the two counties, by the transference of cattle, sheep and horses beween J. J. Craig’s farms, which were on both sides of the River. The witnesses called by the Huntly Town Board were Messrs J. P. Bailey, Jas. Elliot, W. H. Bailey, and F. Harris. Their evidence went to show, that while a slight benefit was derived by Huntly from the erection of the Bridge, by far the greater benefit accrued to Raglan.

It, was pointed out that the Bridge had brought no increase of trade, but rather the reverce, that values were if anything lower, and that Raglan people had experienced a large rise in land values consequent on the erection of the Bridge. Severe cross examination of these witnesses failed entirely to shake their evidence, but rather strengthened their position. No further evidence being forthcoming, Mr Shori declared the case closed, intimating that he would make his report to His Excellency the Governor, who would in due course communicate the award to the parties. The case, which had occupied about four hours, closed at 5 p.m.