COOK COUNTY COUNCIL.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1174, 13 October 1882, Page 2

COOK COUNTY COUNCIL.

A Meeting of the Council was held last evening. Present: J. W. Johnson, Esq., in the chair, Cra. Clarke, Westrup, Chambers, and Weston.

The County Clerk read the minutes which were confirmed. The outgoing correspondence was re .d and approved. A letter was read from Mr (». Burnand, relative to the state of the Hepongaere Boad at the Gully below Waerenga-a-mka. On the motion of Cr. Chambers, seconded by Cr. Westrup, the sum <Jf £o w ordered to be expended on the road, An amendment by Cr, Weston that the money be not so expended, was lost. A letter was read from the Town Clerk re the recent resolution passed at the Borough Council in reference to the Patutahi quarry. It was decided that a letter should be written to the Borough Council to the effect that it would be desirable to have the quarry vested in the County Council. A letter from the same source was read, thanking the Cook County Council for the liberal manner in which they had met them, The following letter was read :— Public Works Office, Wellington, Sept. 28,1882. The Chairman Cook County Council. Sir, —With reference to your letter of the 14th September, relative to the protection of the main road from the encroachment of the Waipaoa River, I am directed by the Minister for Public Works to state that before the proclamation you request can issue, it will be necessary that proper and correct plans of the river and surrounding sections should be furnished for necessary consideration.

I am to express regret that owing to the reduced number of Public Works Engineers now employed, it will not be possible to spare you one as requested.—lam, etc., J. Knowles, Under-Secretary.

A letter was read from Mr A. Peters, of Kaiteratahi, calling attention to the crossing, and urging that a bridge should be built. It was agreed to acknowledge the letter, and to inform Mr Peters that the finances of the Council would not permit them entertaining his proposal at present. Charles Grey wrote relative to the state of the Taruheru Creek, in consequence of a number of logs being allowed to remain after the completion of the bridge. The Engineer explained that one of the contractors had made a false representation, having said he would remove them, but had not done so. The work had not been completed according to specification. One of the partners was willing to complete the work, and it was agreed he should be asked to do so. A discussion ensued as to the concluding remark of Mi' Grey’s letter, which was to the effect that the money of the Council was being wasted. Mr Barker wrote re the bridge at Makauri. The letter was ordered to be acknowledged. A letter from the Public Works Secretary, acknowledging the receipt of a petition iu reference to the Patutahi drain, was received. The Chairman stated that the report on Boland's Wairoa Road contract would be forthcoming at next meeting, Payments to the amount of were passed, of which were refunds on deposits by tenderers. One item, the wages of the tallyman employed in connection with Oxenham's contract, was altered from 18s for attendance day and night, to 12a. It was resolved to hold a special meeting of the Council on Saturday, the 21st last, at 10 a.m., to consider and discuss the new byelaws.

The following tenders were received:—A 87, Mangatu Road: B. McLindon, £47; Jas. Mullooly, £5B 17s lid; M. Boland, £BO. The lowest tender was accepted. The tendering for sections 1,2, and 5 of A 91, Wairoa Road, resulted in only 1 and 2 being tendered for, H. Brownlow, £42, being successful, The Other was B. McLindon, £OO. The Engineer was authorised to expend £l5 on section 6, and arrangements were to be left in his hands.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr Warren, the County Council Clerk, for a fortnight, and it was mentioned that Mr W, J. Quigley would perform the duties of the office during his absence. The Chairman drew attention to the fact of the drains on the road at Patutahi being destroyed by cattle wandering. The County Clerk in reply to a question, stated that the Act did not permit of the cattle being impounded, as the road was not fenced, but that if damage were done the owner could be sued.

It was resolved to give public notice that tiiis would be done, and also to give » bonus a mA* Wn