REPUDIATED AGREEMENT

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4824, 27 April 1925, Page 3

REPUDIATED AGREEMENT

DRAINAGE MISUNDERSTANDING.

HAURAKI AND HORAHIA BOARDS

The relations between the Horahia and Hauraki Drainage Boards have always been watchful, but now an incident has occurred which will probably I-reclude any chance of harmonious working for some time. ... At.the March meeting of the Hauraki board, the chainman, Mr G. Gray, reported the arrangement he had made for the deepening of the first 24 chains of the Towers outlet at 17s 6d per chain with Messrs W. 12. Haie and S. S, Murray, who were each to contribute £5, and that the balance of £lO to be paid half by the Hauraki board and half by the Horahia board. Mr Gray stated that he had communicated with Messrs J. C. Miller and W. E. Hale, representatives of the area on the Horahia ooard, who stated th,at they approved of the arrangement on behalf of their board. He had arranged with the contractor, and the deepening work had been completed and had been passed by Mr Hale. ■ * . The Hauraki board had then, on the motion of Mi- McMillan, seconded by Mr Baker, approved of the chairman's action, and instructed the clerk to send accounts to Messrs Hale and Murray for £5 each and to the Horahia board for £5 7s, being its hah share of the balance, in accordance with the arrangement made. . The clerk accordingly pent accounts to Messrs Hale and Murray, and wrote to the Horahia board stating that he had been instructed to inform that board-that an arrangement had bee.i come to between the chairman (Mr G. Gray) and Mr W. E. Hale, a member of the Horahia board, to carry out certain improvement work in the lower end of the Towers outlet by way M deepening from .the flood-gate to the roadway, a distance’of 24’ chains. This work was in addition to the cleaning agreed upon between the two boards. The Hauraki board had carried out tne work, and it was completed. An account for £5 7s, being the half of

the work indepnedent of the cleaning, less the £lO contributed by the settlers, Messrs Hale and Murray, was .forwarded with a request for a cheque. The letter came before the Horahia board at itis April meeting, and the clerk was instructed to inform the Hauraki board that the Horahia board was not committed to any payment for the Ngataipua drain (Towers outlet) over and above the half of 12s per chain (for cleaning), and it-had no knowledge of any arrangement, to pay more than this amount. Mr Willy pointed out in his letter that at the conference of the. two boards it was agreed to contribute half the cost of cleaning, which it was understood to be .12s a chain. Ap-

parently there was some misunderstanding, for the Horahia board was ’not aware of any further commitment, .. as stated in the Hauraki board’s let- ■■ ter. .■ .

At the monthly meeting of the Ham raki Doard on Friday, yffien the correspondence was read the clerk paid that he had discussed the matter with Mr-Willy, clerk of the.Horahia board, on the date of that board’s meeting in March, and had asked him to have the matter discussed by the board. If ’-hat had been done and the ‘Horahia b jnrd had not agreed to the action the vm-k could have been stopped. Apparently the Horahia board had not disman) on.the same day from the meetcussed the question,. despite the fact that Mr J. C. Miller, a. member of the board, had also rung Mr Gray (chairi:>ig room and had had the whole position explained to him. Mr Gray said that after reading in the Press that the-Horahia board had denied liability he had telephoned Mr Hale, who had stated that he had un.denstood the arrangement was a private one between Messrs Hale/, Murray, and Gray as settlers. He (Mr Gray) had-said that he received no benefit, and had never intended to contribute. Continuing, Mr Gray said that he had spokqii on the telephone to Mr Murray as chairman of the board, and Mr Murray had agreed to contribute £5 provided Mr Hale paid £5 and the two boards found the balance. Previous to this Mr Hale had agreed to pay £5. It had not been possible to get Mi Hale later on, so he had rung up Mr J. C. Miller, the other member

of the board representing the area, who had said that the arrangement would be quite satisfactory to the Itorahia board. As the work on the drain was being done Mr Hale, at Mr

Cray’s request, had, visited the work, and on the position being discussed li ad expressed agreement with the whole arrangement. It was obvious that the question had never been brought up for discussion at a meeting of the'Horahia board-by either Messrs Hale or Miller, despite the fact that they had been specially asked to do >so. Though he would not get any benefit" whatever from the drain he would pay the £5 under jrptest, as there was the chance that he had not made it sufficiently clear that he was speaking on behalf of his board and not for himsejf as a settler.

Members considered.that members

of the Horahia board must either be very dense or were trying to work a point. They had shuffled in their dealings in regard to the Wharepba Road corner culverts. Air, Gray said that the Hauraki board had intended abandoning the Towers drain, but had agreed to contribute to the work as it would benefit the, Horahia board’s area. In future the Horahia board would have tu find the whole cost, ajs his area would not contribute one penny. Mr McMillan said that if an arrangement had been made by membeis .of the. Horahia board and then repudiated by the board, tiie mcmbe’.s should be held personally responsible. He did not think the Hauraki board should pay the whole amount, as if members had no authority to commit their board they had no right to make any arrange-

ment. The Horahia board had had

two meetings since the conference when it had promised to discuss the

question of authorising members to deal with works in their areas, but so far could be ascertained nothing had been done in the matter. After further discussion the following letter was drawn up and approved

“‘Your letter of the 20th inst. in reply io mine of the Bth inst. came before tills board at its meeting held today, and I was instructed to point out to you certain matters in connection with the arrangements made as io the deepening of the first 24 chains oi the Ngatiapua roadside drain. I am further instructed to say that the contention of your board and Mr Hale, a member of your board, is not altogether correct.

“The contention of this board is that the arrangement as made by thus board’s chairman, Mr Gray, with Mr Haie was made with Mr Hale as a private individual and also as a member of your board responsible for the area in which this drain it situated, together with Mr Miller, and as proving this contention Mr Gray informed Mr Miller fully as to what the arrangement was.

• in view of the attitude taken up by your board in the matter I am instructed to say that Mr Gray is prepared to pay the £5 which' Mr: Hal" slated he should pay as part of the arrangement, but in offering to pay this he does so under protect, and 'h no way as an acknowledgment of any liability in the matter on his part as a private individual. This board fails to see—if the arrangement alleged to have been made by Mr Hale as reported in the Press is correct—how tlie same was not brought before joui board when made by Mr Hale or MiMiller for its confirmation or rejection, as the £o to be. contributed by Messrs Hale, Murray, and Gray was insufficient by £6 to pay the total cost of the work, and who was to pay thifa remaining £6. -In making the arrangement Mi Gray, chairman of this board, took it that he. was dealing with Messrs Hale and Miller as representatives of your board, as well as a private individual h> the case of Mr Hale, and this board feels it was at least their duty to have brought the matter before your board at its meeting held m March to give your board an opportunity to either accept the arrangement or turn it down, and as this board did not hear anything from you to the contrary after your March meeting it was -naturally understood that the work was approved, because although at this time the work had been®commenced it cbuld have been stopped without any great loss, wnereas the same was allowed to go on without any provision being made for the balance ’of £6, after allowing fin the three £5 being contributed on Mr Halc : s statement. “In the above circumstances this board would be glad to know what votir board’s opinion is as to how this balance of £6 should be met and what your board is prepared to do. “As this question has cropped up for so small a sum in dispute over dual drain work this board would now like to come to a definite and clear understanding with your board as to all work of any nature on dual drains outside tiie annual cleaning work, and must ask that everything in connection with same be put in writing and confirmed in writing,-and that where this board is asked to carry out any work on these drains you board must give a written undertaking to pay its share of all costs, and, further, put up security for the same.”

It was also decided to ask the Horahia board to.confirm the arrangement in writing with reference to the placing of pipes in the Wharepoa corner culvert, and confirm the fact that the Horahia board was prepared to pay half the cost of-the work after deducting the County Councils’ contribution of £BO, whatever the total cost might amount to, and that as it had become necessary- to renew the floodgate on the same drain by- a new hardwood gate this board requested them to pay half the; cost of making and fitting same, estimated at £l2.