MOUNT PEEL ROAD BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1888, 7 May 1889, Page 2

MOUNT PEEL ROAD BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sie, —I have read your account of the annual meeting of ratepayers in your issue of the 4th. The sole reason for my not allowing myself to be nominated for a seat on the Board was that I considered the ratepayers were not all treated alike in reference to abandoned road*. In my case I have had to give by deed to the board a title to the land required by the board, and have taken in exchange the abandoned road. Other members, or a member, have done the same, and I thought Mr Acland ought to do the same. If Mr Acland had given a deed to the Board of the land the Board have taken, and had received in exchange the abandoned road he would only have done what other rate payers have done, aad tbe ratepayers would not be liable for any accident to man or beast on the abandoned road as well as on the road the Board now use ; which has never heen conveyed hy deed to the Board. A case was tried 'in the Levela District lately, whereby a ratepayer recovered for the loss of a horse (I think about £l6) from the Board not keeping the used road in repair, which had not heen conveyed to the Board. The plea set up was that the used road had not been legally surveyed. This is exactly Mr Acland's case, and I contend the ratepayers are liable for any accidents that may happen to man or beast from want of repair, on hoth the abandoned road and on the land Mr Acland says he gave verbally to the board nine years ago, which are liabilities on both roads the ratepayers need not have if the abandoned road were legally given by deed Mr to A eland, and Mr Acland conveyed by deed the road at present used by the board. C. G-. Tbipp. Orari Qorge, 6th May, 1880. P.S.—I also wanted the pegs to be picked up and replaced where necessary by a surveyor along the road from the Forest to the Long Bush, as the board are not aware if their money is being spent on the surveyed road or on private land. This the board have refused. I suggested by letter at the ratepayers' meeting that I thought it could be done for £4. This I see is agreed to, if the £4 will cover it. If it cost three times that I consider it ought to be done.