COUNTY BOUNDARIES.
ELTHAM AND STRATFORD. SITTING OF COMMISSION. A Boundaries Commission, consisting of Messrs. H. J. Lowe Commissioner of Crown Lands, Taranaki), Oswald Gardner (District Valuer, Wanganui), and J. B. Richards (Stratford), sat at Stratford yesterday for the purpose of hearing evidence regarding a petition from residents of Finnerty Road (Stratford County) asking for a determination whether or not they should be included in the Eltham County Council. The Stratford County Council was represented by Mr. A. Coleman. Mr. J. L. Weir, with him Mr. P. O’Dea, appeared for the Eltham County Council. The Finnerty Road has been for some time under the dual control of the two councils, the farms on one side of the road being in a different county to those opposite. Dissatisfaction over the administration of the road and the community of interest gave rise to a tion from a number of settlers on the road to be included in the Eltham County.
Mr. O’Dea raised an objection to Mr. J. B. Richards sitting on the Commission, in view of a report alleging previous discussion of the matter. After a iong discussion, it was decided to note the objection and proceed with the hearing of the case. A. D. Johnson, farmer on the Finnerty Road, was the first witness, and he gave lengthy evidence of the pdsition betwen the two counties.
E. A. Gray followed. Cross-examined by Mr. Coleman, he said Eltham would still remain their market town if they were merged into the Stratford County. The Eltham roads were be’tter than the Stratford roads. They believed that if they were taken into the Eltham County their road to that town would be tarsealed.
Henry Thrush gave evidence that some years" ago he was a surfaceman at Mahoe, being in charge of 26 miles of road. He did not think much of the Stratford County roads. There were several dangerous corners on the road, and in some cases parents were afraid to send their children to school. The road could be greatly improved by taking off the corners. The petitioners considered they were really part of the Eltham County, and there was no community of interest with the Stratford County. On his part of the Ronald Road he had only seen the roadman once in three years, and they never saw the riding members. They were always in touch with the Eltham County. He criticised the work on the Finnerty Road bridge during its
construction. One of his chief reasons for wishing to merge was unsatisfactory administration and dual control.
Mr. O’Dea pointed out that, with the exception of the cartage of a little cheese, all the petitioners’ cartage went to and from Eltham.
Christian Schneller, occupier of a farm on the Finnerty Road, said his parents had a farm on the Ronald Road, and they frequently had their horse bogged when sledging their milk out.
Arthur George Bryant, a farmer on the Finnerty Road, said that in two years he had only seen the roadman pass his place once. He did no business whatever with Stratford. Witness said, in answer to Mr. Coleman, that the only reason why he wanted to go into t/he Eltham County was because he did all his business in Eltham.
William George Lister, farmer, Finnerty Road, gave evidence on the lines of the foregoing. He wished to join the Eltham County notwithstanding that the rates would be higher. He knew that he would still have to pay rates on the special £90,000 loan. The previous witnesses, in answer to Air. Gardner, said it was not a fact that one of their motives for urging t'he merger was to escape the special rate on toe £*90,000 loan.
Or. C. E. McGuinness, of the Eltham County Council, said the Eltham Council had never objected to paying their half of the cost of the upkeep of the Finnerty Road. The Eltham Council had frequently had complaints about the -vtate of the Finnerty Road, and the complaints had been passed on to the Stratford Council, but nothing had been done to remedy tbe trouble, excepting in a few cases. The road boundary was decidedly imsatisfactory, and the whole road should belong to one county or the other. 'J'hia concluded the case for the -petitioners, and the Commission then adjourned, until ten o’clock to-day.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19220503.2.61
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 3 May 1922, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
719COUNTY BOUNDARIES. Taranaki Daily News, 3 May 1922, Page 6
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.