REPORT OF BOROUGH COUNCIL MEETING.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 293, 11 December 1901, Page 2

REPORT OF BOROUGH COUNCIL MEETING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sm, —I notice in your report of the meeting of the Borough Council held yest iday ili>fc the Mayor (Mr. Dockriil) is stated to " have explained that the solicitor was in some doubt and thought an action should be instituted to test the Council's position, and this would cost more thin the making of the street." - Tnis appears to have been in reference to a petition in connection with the proposed extension of Ourrfe<treet to the new railway goods shed. My opinion on the subject was a ieegthy and explicit one, but it does not seem to bave bean read to the Council, and therefore I will not allude to it except by stating that if the Mayor is correctly reported as above he is wholly inorrect. Far from thinking that " an action should be instituted to test the Council's position" my advice was exactly in the apposite direatioD, and it was I that pointed out that litigation, if instituted, would probably cost more than the making of the street. I truat you will insert this correction to prevent any one supposing that I advised litigation—a luxury which, with rates at 3a Id the £ and streets and drainage in their present unsatisfactory condition, the ratepayers certainly cannot afford to indulge in. In another pirt of your report, dealing apparently with the validity of a proposed by-law to impose payments by every owner of every dwelling-house for an inspection to see' whether the occupii rs c in fscaps in casa of fire Or. Stobr is reported to htvosiid: "It appealed that tho solici'or said one thing and the Act the other "; and Mr. Dockrill to have said that "hehad been informed that the solicitor had stated that t> e < ouncil c )uld not make a char.e f.ir inspection, while the Act; distinctly -t i ed it could." I■. is doubt--I<BS Hl*.<ys d.ificulc for hymen to appreciate fine distinctions, and it is quite, possible that Messrs. Stobr and Bockrill may have misunderstood my advice. I certainly never advised that 10 charge for inspection ceuld be made, but I pointed out that every charge imposed by a by law must bo a reasonable charge, otherwise the by-law might be set at nought. I pointed out that the Act requiring inspection by an officer of the Council had been in force since Ist January, 1901, and that a a officer of the Council had meanwhile valued every holding and every build!ing in the borough and therefore necesi- i sarily inspected them all, and also that: except in the few oases in which peopla I slept upstairs inspection was a mere, formality. Under these circumstances! I advised that in my opinion the im- \ position of a payment to the borougk' by every occupier or owner of a dwell-i liog-houso of an inspection feewoul&j be held to be unreasonable. On thu' other hand I also pointed out thaftj there was a difference in respect of] boarding-houses, and possibly boarding;; schools, in which the upstairs rooms.; were occupied as sleeping apartments.) for hire, and stated that, in my opinion,,; in such cases an inspection fee of a, reasonable amount might be legally: imposed. I also suggested tha» in.: future the valuer should be the " inspector of buildings," and that when.*] he makes his annual valuation and.! serves his usual notice on each rate-,: payer he should accompany it by & short certificate that the building has sufficient means ofescpe incase of fire, which would be quite inexpensive except in a very few cases such as I have indicated above. Thanking you in. anticipation,—l am, etc.,

Oliver Samuel, Borough Solicitor. New Plymouth, 10th December, 1901.