ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 469, 22 October 1879, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE

[Wij are at all times ready to give exp. to every shade of opinion, but in no case vre bold ourselves responsible I'ot the sentiments of our correspondents.] Mr. G. F. SH ER WOO'D.To the Editor of ihe Patea Mail. Sir, —On the polling day for the Egmout Election, the above-named person posted notices on the Court House, stating that he would be a candidate for the first vacant seats in the Patea County Council and Carlyle Town Board. A vacancy having occurred in tile last-named body, I expected he would keep to his promise and come forward, but from the names published in your last issue, he does not seem to have done so. No doubt when he posted the notices ho was smarting under the result of his meeting at the Town Hall on the previous evening. With reference to that meeting,-1 have not hoard that he has carried out his announced intention of prosecuting Mr Dale for the statements ho made that evening.—I am, &c., CARLYLE RATEPAYER. Patea, Oct. 21st. (7b the Editor of ihe Patea Mail.) Sir, —In your issue of tho' 15th instant* a letter appeared touching tho disposal of Farrier-Sergeant Duff’s land (late of tho Wanganui Cavalry), of happy memory. I was with him when he was shot through the right breat at the Pungarihu Pah, and helped to carry him out of tne bush. He never expressed any wish in my hearing about his land, and being an old acquaintance and companion in arms of his, I should have been most likely to have heard it ii he had made such a request to others. When being carried to camp he told mo’ several times he knew it was all np with him ; and ho died shortly after we arrived at the Imperial camp at Waingongoro. Whatever orther' airangements he made respecting his’ land, I know not.—l am* &C/, WILLIAM BOX. Wailotarri, October 17th, 1879. o IS IT SO ? To the Editor of the Patea Mail. Sir, —la it bo, that the Hawera Road Board, at its last meeting* agreed to mortgage a sum of money to erect a bridge on the Noonan Road orit of next year’s rates? As a ratepayer I consider it very unjust. There has been £ls voted out of this year’s rates, a much larger share than said road is entitled to. Do the members consider they are justified in mortgaging rates to the amount of say, £3O out of next year’s rates ; if so, who are to go without next year. Surely if the Board can mortgage for the Noonan Road, they may also mortgage £loo' for the Allen Road, as the’ Noonan Road has had several hundreds already. Let us get equal to the Noonan Road, then perhaps we may refund on the same lay. Surely the members are not on the Board to spend next year’s rates* although the late Board did to the amount to £2OO ami more, as I read per overdraft in you columns. I vlaS in hopes that (his Board, having new members, would have carried on business more systematically* and not have run in debt; but let the ratepayers see before the next election takes place that they are worthy of being returned again, if not, let us change and try some others * but let us have a clean balance sheet presented to ua by the' nresent Board. —I am, &c. t RATEPAYER.