RAROA ROAD.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4586, 13 July 1923, Page 2

RAROA ROAD.

ALLEGED MISi STATEMENTS. NOTICE OF WRIT WITHDRAWNAt the meeting of the Paeroa Borough Council last evening a letter was read from Mr E l , W. Porritt,, unde'r date June 25, stating that the report of the Works Committee, as published in the “Gazette” on June 20 was such a perversion of the truth (that he desired to place on record an absolute and unqualified denial of all the statements made in the report.

On June 26 he wroite as follows : — “Notice is hereby given that (unless in the meantime a full and ample public retraction and apology is made and published) it is my intention at the expiration of one month from the date of the service of this notice to issue a writ against the members of the Works Committee and the Paeroa Borough Council for the sum . of. one thousand pounds (£1000) damages for slanderous statements made in the report of the Works Committee, adopted by the Council, and published in the “(Hauraki Plains Gazette” of the 20th inst This notice is given and served under the provisions of section 353 of ‘The Municipal Corporations Act, 1920.’ ”

On June 28 he wrote as follows: —

“Raroa Road.—ln reply io yours of the 27th inst., the imputation contained in the report that I retained £7O that should have been paid into >he Borough Fund is to my mind slanderous. In fact, what drew mv attention to. the report was a statement made to me that the Works Committee-had reported that I ‘had collared £7O pf Borough money.’ While this imputation stands I am not prepared to withdraw my notice, as such a statement circulated, broadcast throughout the. district is likely to do a considerable amount of injury. In order to catch up to it as soon as possible T published a reply in the ‘Gazette’ of the 27th. inst. To i r hat reply I have, at the present time, nothing to add, except’ that in the sentence ‘and for that consent; it .received the road referred to’ the, word ‘road’ is-a misprint for ‘bond.’ ' . “I have already shown His Worship the Mayor' certain correspondence, which, I think, satisfied him as to the correctness ’of certain of the statements I have made.

“I accept your letter in the spirit in which it is wriltten, but as it is ‘without -prejudice,’ this reply is also without prejudice.” On July 5 Mr Porritt wrote stating ■that he had gone into the matter with His Worship the Mayor and had been satisfied that no imputation was intended in the report,’ as published, and . .that, on the /scanty information available to the committee at the time, and in the absence, of fuller details,' there was- justification, for fdr some of the statements in the report. Tile Mayor' had assured him that eVOn’in-the'absence of fuller details there was no suggestion intended to. be conveyed that there was anything improper in the transaction re .Termed to. , The assurance was .accept-.. ed : aii the notice served as a precedent to any action withdrawn : The Mayor said'; “It is satisfactory foi/ thq Council to. hnow that the notice of intention do issue a writ , has been withdrawn.' I wish to state, however, that the whole purpose of the report was to show the Council that no claim existed as of right ’.o have the £BO which waS paid into the district fund account in connection with the master used for metalling Raroa Road. In my opinion no good purpose could be served by going further into the subject. Reference to the file, which is now -domplete, will give all details if they are required by any councillor. T am personally satisfied that ratepayers - interests were quite- protected -and the committee had not the slightest , intention of suggesting that ’Mr Porritt had done anything that was at all questionable or improper, and I am very pleased that this is now recognised by Mr Porritt; • The Council may safely consider the incident closed."