CORRESPONDENCE. (TO THE EDITOR.)

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 152, 1 May 1886, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE. (TO THE EDITOR .)

Under no circumstance is the Editor responsible for the matter contained in correspondence.

Sir, — From your report of tbe meeting of the Piako County Cjuncil in the News of the 17th of April last,

it appeal s that they have referre 1 to their solicitor, as to the possibility of making Mr Roche liable for causing the gully now known by his name to be cut through tae line of the (as yet unformed ) road at Ohineroa Thus while compelled by lack of funds, to refuse money for useful works, they are wasting the means of the County in fees to a solicitor in Auckland, or elsewhere, for an opinion on a matter, about the facts of which he will know as much as the man in the moon. A correspondent some time ago also stated in your paper that Mr Roche had cut through the river bank, to let out the waters of n lake by which means he had done much mischief, now this was not the case, as Roches gully was there before Mr Roche, only it was much shorter than it now is Pour years and a half back 1 lived in that gully, in a tent, for the sake of the shelter afforded by it, and at that time it showed evidences of antiquity, being clothed with vegetation, there was also as might have boon expected water running through it though not much in dry weather, stili it was a natural outlet for some of the waters above it, and I believe that in any case, as the lands became drained downwards from the hills, more water would have found, its way by natural means into the gully, and so out into the river ; the absence of Mr Roches special drain would only have deferred the inevitable event. But how would the matter have stood as regards the county road, if this drain had not been male, and nothing had been done on the spot. The road line would then have run through ponds of water, with flax growing round them, on the hill side of the road, there woul I have been a very wet swamp, sloping down from the range to the road, and on the other side of the road there would have been a small lake, in which I often bathed up to my neck in water, this also running in one part across the road line, and it would have been necessary for the County to do what Mr Roche has done for them, drain away all this water. Now as this natural outlet (the afoiesaid gnlly) is close to the spot, they would certainly have let the water out into the river by these easy means, the only alternative being to convey it into the drains which now carry the water four miles to the Wairakau creek. But it is a question whether the water at this spot could be made to run into those drains at all, anyhow the council would have incurrre 1 considerable expense. But if they had drained into the gully, as they certainly would have done, the same results would have followed ultimately, as in doing so they would have tapped the whole swamp, and in the end they would have had the bridge to build all the same, in addition to incurring heavy drain ago expenses, and they probably would have had to make that portion of the road twice over. Now, the whole of the water is let out quite up to the range, and as it has done its worst, there is nothing more to be feared. Anyhow the water had to be let out, as no man of common bense would maintain that a large tract of land was to go unreclaimed, because a road line happened to have been marked out across the natural fall of the waters. Now the road line is quite dry, and has long been used, Mr Roche having at his own expense made bridges for the convenience of the general public as well as himself, these however not being large enough have been swept away, and I suppose he thinks he has done enough for the community by this time, having lost some acres of his land besides, he has however raised the rateable value of a large track of land for the benelit of himself, his neighbours, and the county. In conclusion I wish to say, that I am in no way specially concerned to defend Mr Roche, but simply wiite in the interest of fair play, and as having a special knowledge of the ground, as owner of the adjoining land. — Yours, etc, John Squirkell. Shaftesbury, April 24th, 188 G.