Opunake Town Board.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 72, 12 March 1895, Page 3

Opunake Town Board.

> The ordinary monthly meeting was held on Monday, March llih. Present—Messrs G. W. Rogers (chairman), A. O’Brien, J. Stewart, D, McGregor, and H. H. Seccombc. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed. Correspondence from PaymasterGeneral, notifying that 15s fines in dog registration cases had been paid to credit of the Board. From Stratford County Council, stating that the cost of the licensing election was £llß 10s, and that this district’s share was £l3 7s lid ; also, that the expense of the Licensing Bench to date was £2B 19s, and Opunake’s share £3 8s 6d. The outward correspondence was road and approved. The following tenders had been de*lt with by the Works Committee, and were now confirmed : No. 183—Gravelling from South Road to Bowen Crescent, W. Costello, ii per chain (accepted). No. 132—Supplying 100yds gravel * A Cross, Is 9d per yard ; W. Costello» 2s per yard. There was a difficulty about obtaining the gravel, and it was resolved that Messrs O’Brien and Stewart be a committee to prospect the crescent to see if a suitable pit could be opened up. [Eogers-McGregor.] No, 181—Fencing contract at pound paddock: A Clough (accepted), £l2 Os sd;_J. Troweek, £ls 17s; W. Costello, £l9 9s 3d. REGISTRATION OF STOCK. The Chairman said now that the pound paddock was to be fixed up, steps must be taken to compel registration of stock. There were only 25 head registered last year, when the charge was 5s per head. Mr Stewart said that owners of property should be allowed the right to graze cattle, but the number should be limited, and, if limited, he did not know whether they should be charged for or not. The Chairman was not in favor of limiting the number. He was in favor of running as many as they liked to pay for. There were people who ran as many as 20 head on the township, and if they did not register them the ranger would soon snap them up. Mr Stewart said it would be hard on the ranger to muster up 20 head. Mr McGregor assured him that it was juet as easy as driving one.

Mr O’Brien asked what was the Board’s object in grazing cattle. The Chairman replied that it was to get revenue. In the past it was found that they could not stop people running stock on the town, so they therefore licensed them, and one year got £25 revenue from it.

Mr McGregor pointed out what it - had cost to put the pound in order, and that it would take the grazing license fees for a couple of years to pay for it. .The Chairman said it would be absurd not to make a charge for grazing. Mr Stewart said if they did not charge, they must certainly limit the number of stock. Mr McGregor said the fact of the matter was there was no grass on the ran how for those who jpaid their ss. Mr Stewart said they were not there to legislate for themselves, but for the public. The town property suffered from cattle running. - The Chairman knew they did a certain amount of damage; therefore they charged to recoup the loss. One year it worked well. Mr McGregor said after that members never backed one another up. _ Mr Stewart said they had to consider the legal point of whether they could allow them to run or not. The Chairman said they could soon get over that by putting the ranger on. _Mr Stewart said if they charged a higher price there would be better feed, and he would keep calves off at any price.

Mr McGregor said he would like to see all who registered stock compelled to make a declaration, and would fix the limit at four head. Mr Stewart said there were people making a revenue off the the town, but were not paying anything for it. They received big cheques, and were only laughing at the Board. Mr Rogers moved, “ That the rules and fees be the same as last year.” Seconded by Mr O’Brien. Mr McGregor moved, as an amendment, “ That the number each person may run be limited to four cows or horses.” The amendment, on being put, was declared carried. DRAINAGE. Messrs J. Kennedy and T. Knowles waited on the Board as a deputation on the question of drainage. Mr Kennedy said they would like to know what the Board wished the hotelkeepers to do with regard to drainage. The Chairman had explained the matter to him, and he was satisfied -with the explanation, but wished to know if that was the only nuisance in the town. If the Board was going to deal with sanitary arrangements, they must get a scheme out.

The Chairman said no person was allowed to run dirty water on to the street, but so far complaints had only been made against the hotels. Mr Kennedy cited a case in Wellington where soap suds were run down the gutter until they reached a grating, and then went under. If the Board supplied a drain and grating, he would see that refuse water from his place was run into it. The Chairman said the Board was not in a position to enter into a drainage scheme, and under the law each person was responsible, and the Board had no alternative but to take action when complaints were made. Mr Kennedy said that if the ground was porous they could dig a deep hole and let the water away in that manner,

but ns it was it would soon fill up with storm water and o-onflow, when it would bo worse than row. The Chairman said that that was the manner in which the -slops, &•_*., were dealt with when the Empire Hotel was standing, and ho never heard of it being a nuisance, and he understood it was the way it was got rid of everywhere else where there was no regular drainage. Mr Stewart quite agreed with Mr Kennedy, and said there was not a good drop of water in Hawera. Mr Knowles said that his place was worse situated still than Sir Kennedy’s. The Chairman asked if they could suggest any method in which the Board might concur. Mr Kennedy said if the town were a populous one he could understand exception being taken to such overflow 7 , but a & the nuisance only existed for about two months in the summer, he did not think it was worth troubling about. They had each received notice from the Constable on the matter.

Mr McGregor said the Board had warned them before, but they had not taken the slightest notice of it, so there was nothing left for the Board to do but call the attention of the Health Officer to. the matter. The Chairman said he saw nothing for it but to let the law take its course. Mr Knowles asked that the matter bo withdrawn from the hands of the police. Mr O’Brien asked Messrs Kennedy and Knowles what proportion of the cost they would be prepared to contribute if the Board could see its way to doing anything in the matter of providing paving. Mr Kennedy was not prepared to contribute anything. Mr Knowles agreed to contribute one third cost. The deputation then withdrew. Mr Stewart stated that they bad taken action and they cannot withdraw that, but they might try and mitigate it until the Board was prepared to do something to assist in abating the nuisance. Constable Twomey bad doue nothing and the Board could easily tell him not to be too rigorous. The Chairman was of opinion that they should take no action in the matter. Mr McGregor said he was of the same opinion. Mr O’Brien moved that four chains be paved and gravelled from Mr Knowles’s hotel to the corner of the Ihaia Road, Mr Knowles to bear one third the cost. Seconded by Mr Stewart. Mr McGregor said this would only remove the nuisance to Guy’s corner when complaints would be sure to come in again. Mr Stewart did not think it would as it would be washed to the river. Mr Seccombe thought that if it were paved to the corner the water from the Ihaia Road would wash it over the cliff. In Mr Kennedy’s case it was different. The Chairman said this would be stultifiying their former action. He believed in dealing with all fair and square. He did not believe in treating one different to the other. If Kuowdes’s was to be done then Kennedy’s should be clone the same, but he considered it was not the duty of the Board to provide a means of getting rid of the dirty water from any place.

Mr Stewart said Knowles’s wanted doing and Kennedy’s did not. Mr McGregor moved an amendment that no action be taken in the matter. Seconded by Mr Rogers, Mr Stewart requested the motion to be put, and then they could deal with an amendment after. The Chairman ruled that the amendment was admissible. On the amendment being put it was lost in division. Ayes ; McGregor, Rogers ; noes: O’Brien, Seccombe, and Stewart. The motion was then put and carried. Ayes: O’Brien, Seccombe, and Stewart; noes: McGregor, Rogers. Resolved that the permission of the Taranaki County Council be requested to do the work. [O’Brien-Stewart.] Mr O’Brien said that the reason why he had not included Kenndy’s in the motion was because he had not examined it and therefore could not express an opinion as to what was best to be done with it, but he thought it would be advisable to set up a committee to examine and report. Mr Stewart moved, that a committee consisting of Messrs O’Brien, McGregor, and the mover be appointed to inspect Kennedy’s drain and report on the best way to deal with it. Seconded by Mr Seccombe and carried. The following accounts were passed for paymentC. F. McGregor, 19s 6d; J. Guy, £6 18s 6d; C. Goosey, 8s ; Opunake Times, 9s ; J. Treweek, 5s ; Christie and Co, £2 11s ; F. Des Forges, 3s 6d ; J. S. Knobbs, 7s 6d ; Stratford County Council (Licensing), £l6 16s sd.