A CORRECTION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 219, 11 April 1872, Page 8

A CORRECTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, — In your issue of to-day, in the report of the case of Sutherland v. Pearson, heard before the Resident Magistrate, I am represented as having contended that the Warden's Court was the tribunal before which the matter should have been brought, as a question of title had arisen. This novel position might perhaps have some merit from its brilliant originality, but certainly nomj that I can discover from its foundation on law, nnd therefore (with your permission) I hasten publicly to correct it. On the plea to the jurisdiction,, the first point raised by me (and a poor enough one too) was, that as the parties derived whatever right they originally possessed from the Goldfields Acts, the matter should come before the Warden. This being overruled, I contended that Mr. Sutherland's track and ford (if he had any right to them at all) constituted an easement appurtenant to bis freehold, and therefore a hereditament, and that the question of his right to it was a question of title over which tbe local Court had no jurisdiction. — I am, &c,

F. H. M'Coy. Lawrence, April 4th, 1872.

(To the Editor.)

Sib, — " P. Tenax," writing in your last week's issue with reference to the unti r.ely decease of the " Bruce Standard," makes one very grave misstatement. He says the Bank took proceedings " without giving the slightest notice." % Allow mo to contradict "P. T." so far as this remark is concerned. — You s &c,

David Stakk, Late Proprietor B. S. Tokomairiro, 4th April, 1872.

ROAD BOARD

(To the Editor.)

Sra,, — In your issue of the 14th ulr. the Mayor of Lawrence, at a meeting of the Town Council, is reported to have said, when speaking on the subject of establishing a Road Board in the Tuapeka- district, " that under the Road Board Or.li nance the district would be divided into parishes, and the money raised in each parish would be expended in the parish where it was raised, and in it solely." Are we, Mr. Editor, to attribute this statement of the Mayor's to ignorance of the subject on which he was speaking, or to a desire on his part to mislead many in the district who view with feelings of distrust this latest scheme to " brin^ grist to the Lawrence mill ?" for, if we know nothing else, we know that

Lawrence will, of course, be what some of its inhabitants are pleased to call " the grand centre." We may expect to hear the gentleman referred to argue next that the rates collected in each ward of the municipality are spent in the ward in which they are collected, and in it solely. There would be as much reason in one statement, as in the other: yet everyone would know the latter to be incorrect. You, Mr. Editor, in your issue" of the date above mentioned, supply your readers with a synopsi'3 of the Otago Roads i Ordinance, 1865, wherein the functions of Road Boards are defined ; but I fail to see any reference to any provision for the dividing of the Road Board districts into parishes, ortbr the spending of the money raised, as indicated by his Worship. In Waitahuna West — the portion of this district it is proposed to unite to Tuapeka— thfcre

is." much first-class agricultural land — the tiring to be deiirecT-by IKe" promoters of the Eoad Board movement ; but I do think they had a deal of assurance to attempt to appropriate so great a part without first ascertaining the wishes of the residents in the matter. "We may at some future time feel disposed to establish a Hoard Board, but if the Tuapekaites are permitted to carry out their intentions, and the district be thus shorn of its " better half," any such scheme would become impracticable. In conclusion, I would, say to the gentlemen advocating the formation of the Board, please confine yourselves to the boundary line separating the two electoral districts, and leave our district intact. — I am, &c D

, IGGEH. "Wailahuna, April 2nd, 1872.