MOUNT PEEL ROAD BOARD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1896, 25 May 1889, Page 2

MOUNT PEEL ROAD BOARD.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—ln your issue of the 21st inat., under the heading " Mount Peel Eoad Board," I find the following: That my letter of 27th April stated that my reason for not coming forward as a candidate for a seat on the board was owing to the board refusing to consent to the surveying of the road deviations on the Mount Peel Eoad, and having the land at present used as a road transferred to the board. I considered in justice to the ratepayers this ought to be done, as at present the board was liable for any accident that might occur on the new road or on the abandoned one. A letter was read from Mr Acland stating that as owner of the land taken for the deviation of the road he had never objected to giving a title to the board, but, as a member of the board, he considered it an unnecessary expenditure of the ratepayers' money, as the public had acquired a right to the road, having used it for the last ten or twelve years. It was then proposed that I be informed " that there is no mention in the minutes of him or any ratepayer having brought the matter before the board in a Jormal manner to have the road conveyed to the board."

Some years since, when the board had to make roads on my freehold at Kaincliff, it was found that where the surveyed road was it was impracticable or very expensive to make it there, or where roads had been made it was found advisable to alter the line in places, as at Mount Peel, and at Eaincliff and Clayton. Mr Irvine, the clerk, was instructed to get the deviations surveyed, and the necessary papers from the surveyor for the respective parties to sign. This took a long time, and I remember distinctly the chairman asking the clerk more than once when these matters would be ready. In time the necessary deeds came for signature. I remember signing mine, and the clerk was directed to get it registered. I stated at that meeting that there was a deviation at Mount Peel. The clerk reported that Mr Acland was out of the way, and he had not got that survey done. I have from time to time referred to it not being done, and when I saw in the Timaru papers that a ratepayer in the Levels district had recovered in Court a sum for damages to a horse on a road that had been formed by the Levels Road Board in the place of the surveyed road, I brought the subject again before the board, as it was exactly Mr Acland's case in point. As Mr Acland was at this time in Wellington, the board took no action in the matter till his return, not liking, naturally, to do anything in his absence. The discussion was to this effect: How to acquire the land without Mr Acland losing \

his seat on the board. I think Mr Denmstoun suggested the way it might be done was for Mr Acland to have all the deeds ready for the annual meeting of ratepayers, when we all retired, and after the meeting, and before the election, for Mr Acland to sign—and this would not deprive him of his seat. When Mr Acland returned from Wellington I - brought the Levels case before him, and what the board proposed. rTone of us liked to go further, and left it for Mr Acland himself to say what he was agreeable should be done. On the 18th of April last—meeting of the board that I attended —Mr Dennistoun suggested that the road from the pound at Peel Forest should be closed, owing to a steep fall into the Eangitata of about 25ft, and an accident might happen. The board agreed to it. Shortly afterwards, when Mr Deonistoun, Mr Acland, and myself were in the room, Mr Acland said to Mr Irvine (the clerk) " Get the road surveyed." I at once said that an the surveyor was coming up let him survey the road frora Peel Forest to Long Bush and put the pegs in. Mr Acland said: " Dennistoun, do you hear what Tripp proposes—that the read from the Forest to Long Bush shall be surveyed?" Mr Acland' looked vary angrily at me, and said, "/ shall always oppose its being surveyed" I felt so hurt at what I considered to be an injustice to the ratepayers that I took up my hat and left the board, and said, " Gentlemen, I believe you are doing very wrong." -^ At the annual meeting of ratepayers, it is reported in your issue of the 4th, there was a considerable discussion upon the road deviation, and it was proposed by Mr Pithie, and seconded by Mr Newman—" That fchig meeting is of opinion that the surveying of the road should be left as it is, unless it can be done for such a sum as named by Mr Tripp, namely, £4.— Carried unanimously. At the meeting of the board on the 17th I handed to them an offer from a surveyor (the clerk had spoken l to to survey the road from the pound) to pick up all the pegs and replace' those that were missing from the Forest to the Long Bush for the sum £4, and to make a survey for the Land Transfer Office of the used road for the abandoned road for the sum of £3 3s. In case there might be any hitch about it costing the board more than £4,1 sent them my cheque for £3 3s to cover the expense. The cheque was returned on the 15th, with the remark: "As no steps have been taken to have the road surveyed, the clerk was directed to return your cheque of £3 3a, with thanks." The chairman stated at the annual meeting of ratepayers on the 2nd "that, he had conveyed the rajftd verbally t 3 them some years ago/land if any person allowed a portion of his land to be used as a road for over seven years he could not then stop the public from using it, but it became a public road." I got a legal opinion from Messrs Harper, of Christchurch, on the 14th. They say: "If the English Common Law and the English Prescription Act of 1832 be in force in the colony, a right-of-way over any . land cannot be acquired in less than 20 years, and in Borne cases 40 years. A verbal conveyance has no effect. ' It may sometimes be construed into an agreement to give a deed of conveyance, but then it is practically of little avail unless the deed be . actually given and registered. Both this legal opinion and the offer of the surveyor were before the last meeting of the board, and the ratepayers, by the report in the newspaper, were not made acquainted with. it. The board and ratepayers must now see tha resolution of the ratepayers at the annual meeting to " have the road surveyed if it could be done for £4 " has been ignored. Again, if the clerk neglected to enter my proposal to have the road surveyed when the surveyor came to survey the road from the pound in the minutes, and the other discussions at various times to acquire the freehold of the land, it is not my fault-, and I must say obliging , some ratepayers to convey their Und» for roads, and not obliging all, must beV' a constant source of annoyance and mjustice to all concerned.

C. G. Teipp. Orari Gorge, 22,'nd May, 1889. P.S.—Mr Acland knows, and* all ratepayers know, that no conveyance of an exchange of land can be made without a plan. Therefore, as long as the survey is put off it is no use offering a deed, as no deed can be made. If Mr Acland is now convinced by Messrs Harpers' legal opinion, that the. public have not acquired the freehold of the land on which the ratepayers' money is spent, will he still persist in having the road repaired, knowing it is on his private land ? and will he still persist in opposing its being sur\veyed? If Mr Acland objects to j consent, on behalf of the ratepayers, to the expense of the survey of this

road, how is it that he does not object to the expense of the survey of the road from I the pound to the Eangitata ? Is it not ' a very weak argument that the matter has not been brought before the board in a formal manner ? I contend it has, Mr Dennistoun's suggestion to have the road from thepound to theßangitata surveyed was not, to my knowledge, seconded, though it ivas agreed to by the board, Ts o one disputes it tvqs wfa formally. It is a weal way of trying to get over what is right and just to the ratepayers. If Mr Acl»n4

had given the land to the ratepayers nine years since, it is most singular when the discussion to acquire the land after the Levels case took place, no one at the board referred to it, for until the annual meeting of ratepayers on the 2nd I never to my knowledge heard of it hefore. I have asked for a capy of the minutes in which reference is made to it, and I got a letter from the board, and the board's clerk neglects to refer to my question. I conclude, therefore, there is no minute that has any reference thereto. J C.G-.T.