HARBOR BOARD.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 148, 4 June 1884, Page 2

HARBOR BOARD.

After the Borough Council had concluded its business, an adjourned meeting of the Harbor Board was held. The outgoing correspondence was read. ' Incoming Correspondence. From W. Adair notifying, in reply to the Board’s letter, that he nominated Mr. J. R. Morgan as his valuator of his property on the foreshore. Cr. Lewis—l move that our Engineer be appointed valuator on behalf of the Board. Mr. Kenny—l second that.—Carried. From Common Shelton & Co., as follows :— “ We are in receipt of your favor of the 15th, and in reply to same, would refer you to our existing agreement, also our letter of the 17th April 1883, and to the Harbor Work’s Act of 1878, to 1883, as well as the Gisborne Harbor Board Act 1882. We still hope an amicable settlement may be arrived at in reference to this matter, and we are at any time willing to meet you or your committee to try and arrange the matter.” The letter referred to above, dated April 17th 1883, ran thus :—“ We have your favor of the Bth March, and having taken advice on the matter regret we cannot adopt the idea contained in your resolution, but in order to facilitate a settlement of this question we are quite willing to refer the whole matter to arbitration, and shall be willing to meet a committee of the Board to arrange the term and condition of such arbitration.”

Mr. Smith—l think if any matter has been fully discussed and gone into in this Council it is this question of Common Shelton & Co. and the Board having come to a decision on the matter, should stick to it. This proposal of arbitration is quite informal, and is noway an answer to our letter asking them to appoint a valuator. Mr. Joyce—ln my opinion the reply looks as if they wished to dispose of the property as they are about to leave it, and remove to new premises. They should appoint a valuator at once like Mr. Adair did.

The Chairman—This, certainly, is not a reply to our letter, but we have made no provision for such a case as this in our resolution re the appointment of valuators. By that resolution we have to appoint a valuator and they another, and that is all. Mr. Smith—l think the best thing we can do is to give them notice that we will appoint a valuator for the Board and go on with the work. The Chairman—Would it not be better for me to see them on the matter ? Mr. Lewis—No, I do not think so; it is quite evident they know what they are about. They only want to bring up old agreements, and wish to prolong the time. The longer they can be there the longer they will be. The Chairman—But if they do not appoint a valuator, what course do we pursue ? The resolution does not make any provision for that.

Mr. Townley—l was against this system from the first. I wanted the Board to meet Messrs. Common and Co. to make some arrangement, but that was not agreed to, It now appears to me that the Board will have to say that they will take steps to eject them if they do not oome to some reasonable understanding, That is our only course, and we had better communicate with a solicitor at once. The question of referring the matter to arbitration is only just to give them time, as there is really nothing to arbitrate. Mr. Kenny—We ought to be advised on this matter. The Clerk—Mr. Nolan advised us that we were in a position to eject them. Mr. Kenny—But he does not say there is any definite course of action we can take. He does not say you can take such and such steps, and does not clearly indicate a course of action as he ought to do. Therefore I say what we should do, is to request Mr. Nolan to prepare a case, a statement of all the facts, and to lay it before some leading solicitor in the colony, such as Mr. Whitaker, and get advice on the matter, and see what course he would recommend the Board to take, to get rid of this nuisance. I think that we are quite justified in a matter of this importance in getting the very best legal advice that we can. Mr. Shelton informed me that he had got the best legal advice he could, and found that he had a right to remain there. This may be correct or may be all bounce, but still that advice may be wrongly given. The Chairman—There is another letter we have received from Mr. Nolan on this matter. Cr. Kenny—Y’es, but that does not tell us what steps we should take. I shall propos 3 that the solicitor of the Board (Mr. Nolan) be written to, and requested to draw up a case stating fully the facts in regard to the Common, Shelton and Co. difficulty, and have that case laid before some leading counsellor in the colony, in order that we can get a real good opinion on the matter, and one that we can with safely act on. The Chairman—l perfectly concur with Cr. Kenny in obtaining the best legal advice we can, but it would be very expensive, something like 50 or 100 guineas. Mr. Kenny—l don’t think so. I think we can get an opinion from 25 to 30 guineas, and perhaps less than that. 1 have never heard of such a charge as 50 guineas for an opinion. Member’s Joyce and Lewis agreed with this. Mr. Townley—Public bodies have’generally to pay more than private persons. Mr. Joyce—l would suggest thatfJMr. McDougall’s opinion be asked, as he would give it most conscientiously. The Chairman—lf this matter goes into the Supreme Court, it means something like £4OO to the loosing party. Mr. Townley—We only want the land, they can take their buildings away. Mr. Kenny—l understand that the thing has been hampered by former agreements, and it must be remembered that the Supreme Court will look at the side of equity. If the Court sees from the agreements that they, in equity, have a right to vemain where they are, they will give their decision accordingly. The Chairman—l would like to see Messrs. Common, Shelton and Co., with regard to the matter. Mr. Joyce—Mr. Adair has consented to do what is required of him, therefore you cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. Messrs. Common, Shelton & Co. will have to do what we ask them to do. Mr. Townley—l consider it would be the best course to pursue, to let the Chairman call on Messrs. Common & Co. To me, in this case, one is the trespasser and the other the owner. I look upon the agreement as s* much waste paper.

The Chairman— lf the whole thing was pointed out to them, instead of at once taking a legal course, we might be able to come to some terms. But if they still remain obdurate, then we can only resort to law to have our wishes carried into effect. Mr. Kenny—l will withdraw my motion in favor of that. It was then decided 'that the Chairman should should see Messrs. Common, Shelton, and Co. an I report the result of the interview at the next meeting of the Board. Engineer’s Report. Harrowing at the Wharf.— This so far has not been successful, the bed of the river turning out to be harder than was anticipated, another trial will bo made to-morrow, when it is to be hoped that better results will be obtained. Floating Breakwater. — Some time ago, at the request of a member of the Board, I wrote to a friend in England for particulars of the floating breakwater—a model of which was shown at the Fisheries Exhibition in London. These I have now received and submit for your information. The invention appears but it has not yet been practically tested. It would not in any case be suitable to Gisborne, where we want quay accommodation—not a harbor of refuge. Foreshore.— Having in view the proposals which have been made at the late meetings of the Board, which contemplate cutting up and leasing the foreshore along Read’s Quay, I venture to submit that such a course would be objectionable from an engineering point of view. The navigable part of the river, (at any rate up to the junction of the Waimata and Taruheru) ought to be treated on some uniform plan with a view to improving and straightening the channel. This could be done by the Board, but probably not by a number of private individuals. After the necessary works had been executed (the chief of which would probably be a breastwork and a parallel training wall), the reclaimed land below the present highwater mark, not required by the Board might be let as suggested. But at present the foreshore along Read’s Quay is of little value as a means of access to the river, except where (as near Common, Shelton & Co.’s store) the navigable channel is on the town side. Salient point at Common, Shelton & Co.'s.— The removal of point ought to be included in any scheme of river improvement, and such being the case, I do not think that any new permanent works on the point should be sanctioned. The Engineer—With regard to the harrow, ing, I have tried the rake since it has been repaired and it seems to work much better. I have tried to work it with horses pulling each side, but I don’t think it can be worked that way. We shall have to get a punt, though I have tried to get one and cannot. I think the best thing we can do is to call for .tenders for clearing out the channel along the wharf. The contractor could have the use of our tackle, and could get a punt of his own, which would keep us from having to buy one. Mr. Lewis—A punt might be rented. The Chairman—What expense have we been to up to tha present with the rake ? The Engineer—About £lO or £l2. Mr. Joyce—After the tenders have been called for, is the Engineer of opinion that the harrowing will be a success ? The Engineer—l think so. We would not loose anything, because the contractor would have to do the work. The work ought to be done in twenty days at about 80s. a day. The river should be deepened about 8 feet to a distance of about 200 feet from the wharf. Mr. Townley—l propose that the Engineer call for tenders for the work he recommends, and that power be given to him to accept any one of them provided it does not exceed £BO.