SPECIAL MEETING..

Manawatu Herald, Volume II, Issue 13, 7 October 1879, Page 3

SPECIAL MEETING..

» fc. Monday, October 6. ;t The Board met at 10.30 a.m. Present — all the Commissioners. -;.'. The minutes of (ho previous meeting were read and confirmed. The following report was read from Messrs Loudon and Coley, who were requested to inspect the Mainstreet footpaths contracts : — No. 1 con tic ct, we learn, has been pnsscd and paid for, but in several places the kerbing JS removed from the stabs in con.-c--quence of being nailed with Sin nnils instead

•i ot 4in. Thi9, however, the contractor says , he will improve by nailing it up -with 4in nails. 1 With reference to No 2 contract, wo find that the kerbing is nailed with 4in nails, and tho work generally well performed, excopt as regards levels, which we find to be very irregular ; but having no specifications to which to refer, we are unable to say whether or not the contractor has performed his work satisfactorily. The main street end footpaths on the south end of the main street take a turn townrcU tho Hast, which gives tho work a creoked and irregular appearance. We are informed that this defect ia caused by the District Engineer who laid out the road, tut it does not appear on the Local Board map. We are informed that the specification of the work is in the hands of the Board, and hence with the insufficient data to go upon, your Commissioners are unable to report further Only two Commissioners — Mess's London and Coley — inspected the work. Jlr Easton did not attend. We would suggest -that the Chairman get the specification, in order that the B"ard may be in a position to judge bow far it hasboen carried out ; and further, that an early meeting of the Board be called, in order that a satisfactory settlement be made with respeot to these matters. F. Loudon Jamer Coley. Mr Easton coincided with, the re* port, and said the joints were not squared, nor tho kerbing- upright, whilst there were several dips in the work. The specification and agreement were read. Several members pointed out that so far as the specifications were concerned, they had beea. fulfilled. Mr Whyte remarked that it would be unfair to punish the contractor because the specifications were loosely drawn. The contractor (Mr Macarthy) remarked to the Board that the Engineer having been dismissed, he had recently asked the Chairman (Mr Gray) to inspect the work, and point out what was wanted. Ho refused, and having no advice, he considered he had made a good sound job of it. The specificatton said he was to be shown anything not specified, and no one had done this. Mr Gray said he distinctly refused to bo at the beck and call of contractors. Mr Loudon suggested that in future the town should be divided into Wards, each member looking after works in his own district. The Board generally expressed its opinion that the contractor should have the money, as the specifications did not hold him. The Chairman said he could not sanction such a course. He thought an arbitrator should be appointed by the Hoard and contractor, and an umpire appointed if the arbitrators could not agree. He wished to take the responsibly off the shoulders of the Board. Mr Whyte thought the Chairman could not object to any resoludon the Board might pass. Mr Ooley said he considered the work had been done according to the specification. The Chairman remarked that the standards were to have been sin x 3in, whereas they were only 4 in x 3in. Mr Coley was not aware of that. Mr Macarthy said an error had evidently occurred, for which he would allow the extra amount given him for using heart of totara.