PIRONGIA BRIDGE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 340, 25 February 1911, Page 5

PIRONGIA BRIDGE.

I ENQUIRY ADJOURNED. A Commission appointed by his Excellency the Governor (Mr W. S. Short, Commissioner), sat at Te Avvamutu yesterday to inquire into the question of whether it was necessary to erect a new read bridge over the Waipa river at I'ivotigia, and if so who was to have charge of it and what local bodies should contribute to the cost, and in what proportions. The Waipa County Council was the local body issuing the citation. Waitoino and Raglan were the two counties from whom it claimed contributions. The Kawhia County Council was also cited and a contribution claimed from it by the Raglan County. The following counsel appeared Mr A. E. Skelton, Auckland (Raglan), Mr A. Swarbrick, Hamilton (Waipa), Mr 11. T. Gillies, Hamilton (Kawhia), and Mr G. P. Finaly, Te Kuiti (Waitoino). The citation showed that the new bridge, as proposed by Waipa, would cost £4500 and probably more. Mr Gillies objected, on behalf of Kawhia to being called before the Commission on so short a notice, when the Statute provided that two months' notice should at least be given. He stated that his County had only been instructed to appear by wire on Monday. lie had no opportunity of preparing his case. Mr Finlay, for Waitomo, said that his County had been allowed four months to remain under the impression that the contributing bodies were to be Waitomo, Waipa and Raglan, and that it was on that basis he had prepared to contest the matter. He further pointed out that if the case was proceeded with, and Kawhia included, any order for contribution that the Commission might make against the Kawhia County would not be enforceable, as they were not legally cited to appear before the Commission. It would be an absurd proposition to further proceed. Mr Swarbrick supported the contention of Mr Finlay and said if Kawhia were liable, as suggested by Raglan, they shoulud be properly cited and brought before the Commission in due form, and that he would at the present junction oppose the further hearing, at which Kawhia appeared, merely under protest. He stated that he would claim the costs of the day from the Raglan County, as had the preceding counsel. Mr Skelton replied that their scheme was to disuse the present Whatawhatahoe bridge, form a road from it to the present proposed site, and make one bridge serve the purpose of two. He further contended Whatawhatahoe bridge had lived its life, and there was therefore good reason for his argument. He would therefore oppose any order for costs being made against his County. Mr Finlay said he was instructed by the Waitomo County that to disuse the Whatawhatahoe bridge, and form a road to the proposed site of the new bridge, would necessitate the construction of a bridge by the Waitomo County over the Maungakewa, costing not less than £2OOO. He therefore submitted that the scheme proposed by Raglan was impracticable, as it would throw too heavy a rate upon the very few 3ectlers in the Waitomo County who were affected. They would have to bear the expenditure necessary to erect the bridge over the Mangaokewa in addition to their contribution to the new bridge. The Commissioner agreed with Mr Finlay that he had no power to consider what the future might be, and that he was only concerned with the conditions as they were at present. He further agreed with Mr Gillies' contention that Kawhia had not been properly cited, and would not therefore be bound by his decision. He ruled, therefore, that the matter must be adjourned in order to have the Kawhia County properly brought before him. The question of costs he would reserve until a further hearing, which would be in April.