PUNT AT MURPHY'S LANDING.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 291, 18 August 1888, Page 2

PUNT AT MURPHY'S LANDING.

[To tfie Editor.] Sir, — fie Punt at Murphy's Landing, and the tender to the Piako County Council for right to run the pami>, it reads in your valuable paper dated the 11th inst., as if Messrs Lloyd and Irwin (the successful tenderers) were in fault in not starling to run the Punt on the Ist inst. as agreed, therefore n boy named James Stewart, a nephew of Councillor Murphy's, by some means got the Punt. As it was not our fault, we wish you would be good enough to publish the following facts in explanation. Messrs Lloyd and Irwin tendered for the right to run the punt at Murphy's Landing in accordance with form of tender and specifications sent to Mr Clerk's store at Waiorongonuii.conditionally that the subsidy of .£36 per annum hitherto allowed by the County Council be continued. We wish to draw particular attention to clause 5 of the specifications, which reads thus : " The Council to have the option ni any time, by giving the lessee one weeks notice in writing of their intention so to do, to take over the punt on paying the said lessee the first cost ofthe^same,but such cost shall not exceed one hundred pounds. In the face of the above-mentioned clause in the Council's specifications for guidance oE intending tenderers, on the 20th July a letter was received from the Council stating that our tender was accepted, but that the following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Council held on the,' 13th ulfc., the very day on which the tenders were opened, " That Messrs Lloyd and Irwin be authorised to run a punt across the Waihou river at Murphy's landing, Waiorongomai, upon the same terms and under the same conditions as those under which it is at present run, save as regards foot passengers, the charge for whom shall be three pence instead of one penny as at present, provided always that the Council shall have tho power at any time by giving one week's notice in writing of their intention so to do, to terminate the 1 agreement by taking over the punt at a fair valuation." We think that any right-thinking man will agree with us that it was not fair to make the alteration referred to as to j valuation of punt without even notifying us of the alteration before accepting our i tender. On the 27th July the agreement for signature was! received, but as there was nothing mentioned therein about the subsidy, and the resolution re valuation being inserted, the agreement was at once returned to be amended. Now the amended agreement was not received by us until the sth August ; therefore it was impossible for us to take over the punt on the Ist inst., the day on which the new contract should have commenced. We think (he above explanation will make it clear that it was the fault of the Council in not adhering to their specifications which prevented us running a pimfc on the Ist inst. asngreed. i

On the 20th July Mr Murphy sent for us, anil in conversation told us in the presence of his son, Oornplius Muvphy (the then lessee) that as tho agreement was not to our satisfaction, and as he did not think that the County Cle.k could add anything to the agreement without authority, he would undertake that his son, C. Murphy, the then lessee of the punt, would run the punt until tho next meeting of Council, when he bolieved the matter would be settled satisfactorily. (!) In course of conversation he told us that in the event of a bridge being built we should get no compensation whatovsr for punt, as there would be no fnrfcher use for it, as Mr Everett at To Aroha had no compensation when bridge was built there. We could have bought a punt from Mr Everett for £40, but Mr Murphy said that that punt would not do on tho river there, as the ends ofpunfc had 100 much of a slope, and that the punfc was not safe. Cr Murphy also said that efforts were being 1 made to form a Borough and thafc in that case there might be a difficulty about tho subsidy, and the payment for punt on termination of contract. We offered Mr Murphy £50 for punt and £5 for hut, cash, but Mr Murphy would not accept les3 than £75. We would have given Mr Murphy £75 if tho Council on termination of contract would allow us the cost price, viz., £75 les3 10 per cent. Mr Murphy said if we did not buy his punt he would run it for his own private use. In reply to this we told him that if we bought his punt we would let his children across free of charge when going to school. We remain, etc., John Lloyd, Martin Irwis.