CORRESPONDENCE. THE OMAKA DISTRICT.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 179, 7 December 1880, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE OMAKA DISTRICT.

To the Editor. Srn, —Would you kindly publish the enclosed copy of letter which 1 handed to the Chairman of the Omaha Road Board: I call it “ courteous,” Mr. Redwood calls it “ ridiculous.” 1 wrote it to him olliciallv, on behalf of my client, and now it is with the family archives at Rivcrlands. Mr. Redwood's personalities are well known from the time when be nearly lost Mr. Ward’s election by insulting Mr. Moorhouse at Crovctown, to the prosecution of 31 r. Bowler for felony, consequently lie may he left alone on this score. All I wish is that Mr. Murphy may suffer no injury by the autocratic conduct of one who is best known to fame by throwing away tile river rates in ridiculous lawsuits.—l am, Ac. Bam. McNab. [copy. ] Sir, —I am instructed by Mr. C. Murphy to communicate with you in reference to the following facts : My client purchased his property in ] 852, there then being, as there were until six weeks ago, certain permanent levels thereon, which fact can be proved by the levels taken by Mr. Park, late Government Engineer, now deposited in the Public Works Office. There is a road laid out through Mr. Murphy’s land (as appears from his deeds) now known as Murphy’s Gross Road, which, under “The Public Works Act, IS7O, ” is vested in the Crown, the management being in the hands of your Board.

Your Board lias recently laid out this road and altered the permanent levels, T presume under section 87, subsection fi, but 1 would like to point out that under section 2 of the Public Works Act, any right or privilege acquired under any Act specified in the Schedule is protected, and that Mr. Murphy laid out his drains under the Nelson Ordinances, repealed by the Public Works Act- of 1870. 1 understand that the gate entrances, five in number, and the drains, have been interfered with by your present works. As to the gate entrances, I am instructed to state that if Mr. Murphy is allowed to make proper approaches from his land on to the road, no question will arise, but as to the drains, I understand Mr. Haddock, your Inspector, has refused to allow my client to clear them. I would ask the Board to grant permission for this work at its next meeting, for they were made in pursuance of the Nelson Ordinance, and, apart from this, Mr Murphy has acquired aright by prescription, he having been over 20 years in possession. Under these circumstances I have to inform you that unless an amicable arrangements is made, Mr Murphy will proceed as advised to vindicate his rights without further notice. Those remarks apply particularly to the drain on the north of Mr Murphy’s property nearest to the Opawa river, and where his opposite neighbour, Mr Allan, tenant of MrMcLauchlan, has been granted this privilege, or, rather, right. In conclusion I have to call your attention particularly to the alterations in the levels at Murphy’s Creek and at the water-way to the north where having been over the ground personally, I feel sure my client has reason to apprehend serious consequences. Mr Murphy, has no wish to involve himself or the Board in legal proceedings, but 1 am instructed to state that he will hold the Board responsible for any damage he may suffer to his rights, whether prescriptive or statutory. I would suggest that the Board should see the damage that is being done to an old settler, and that without any gain to the Board or the Public for the erection of a cross-dam such as at Mr Waddy’s late residence, on the Old Road would'meet the case. I would point out that my client cannot make this work as under the Act, it is only the Board that has control over the road. Hoping to hear from the Board after their next meeting, that they are prepared to meet me in the spirit I have addressed them.—l am &c, Saji McNau. The Chairman, Oinaka Road Board.