ST. AUBYN TOWN DISTRICT.
(To the Editor). Sir, —Your article in Monday's News headed "St. Aubyn Merging," is not a fair statement -of the present position of the St. Aubyn Town Board. As you say the St. Aubyn Town Board was killed on November 7th by clause 28 of the Wash-ing-lip Bill but you forget to state the Board had'been declared dead by a Bill passed 011 August 7th. At that time the greater portion of St. Aubyn had been merged in the. Borough of New Plymouth, but through a blunder of someone the whole of the district had not been*merged. This necessitated the Board still retaining office until the balance of the district had been merged into the Taranaki County Council, and to whom the assets of the Board would have to be transferred. Though dead 011 August 7th, the Board still carried 011 works already under contract, but from that date they have not authorised any new work, but have, on their engineer's certificates, and acting under advice from their solicitor, paid out on these contracts and generally fulfilled their obligations under the conditions of contracts. Though dead by Act of Parliament on August' 7tfh, it was found necessary to again kill them on November 7th, and I presume they consider themselves dead but not buried, for, as you quote,' sub-section 3 of the section of the Washing-Up Bill says, "the assets, etc., of the Town Board shall on the issue of an Order-in-Council become those of the Borough of New Plymouth." This order has not been issued, and, therefore, the Borough cannot take charge of the contracts, assets, liabilities, etc., of the late St. Aubyn Town District. Now what is all the unseemly eagerness on the part of the Borough authorities to take charge of the old clothes of the late dear departed? Surely they can trust a Board elected by the ratepayers to carry out works for which they voted money to expend that money to the best advantage. It would appear as if the Borough Council were over-anxious to stop works that are lot and are being carried out under an engineer who has been accepted by the Borough to see the works completed. Your suggestion that the St. Aubyn Town Board has been and is still expending money is unfair to them. No new work whatsoever has been authorised since August 7th. With regard to paying oat moneys on contracts what, else could the Board do? Contracts were being carried on and payments were due, and contractors had notified the Board that they could not carry on unless payments were made according to tile conditions of their contracts, and this that the Town Board would be liable for an action for damages. Does the Borough wish to take this over as one of the liabilities? As a ratepayer in the merged St. Aubyn Town District, and being conversant with the whole position, my sympathies are with the old Board, and commend their action in do'ng what they and any fairminded person must consider the right thing in a difficult position entirely "attributable to the bungling of the Bor-' ough officials.—l'am. etc., EX-RATEPAYER.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19121204.2.44.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 169, 4 December 1912, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
528ST. AUBYN TOWN DISTRICT. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 169, 4 December 1912, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.