Wed 17 Mar 1920
Mr Bloxam with Mr William Davies inspected slip of wall adjoining highway at Eastington. Wall probably put up when canal was constructed. Mr Gardom suggested calling in an expert such as President of Institute of Civil Engineers to decide on liability for the repairs. Letter to Mr Gardom. Highways Committee of County Council bound to maintain its roads so as not to cause damage to adjoining properties, especially when it had raised road above original level. Canal Company only bound to maintain wall in state sufficient to support ordinary traffic at time wall was built, as in case of bridges. Each party to bear one half of cost of repairing wall.
No estimate from Bomford & Evershed Ltd re cost of dredging canal owing to illness of Mr Evershed.
District Secretary of Dock, Wharf and General Workers Union requested further increase of 7s per week for employees of Navigation. Decision to consult Chairman of Canal Control Committee.
Canal Association had sent Report of Proceedings of a Deputation for the Minister of Transport. Desire for extension of period of control received most sympathetically. Government agreed no action would be taken before 31 August.
Agreement on Financial Year commencing 1 January.
[1920 March] Committee Meeting held at Wallbridge on Wednesday the 17^th day of March 1920 @ 3.20 o'clock pm
Present: Jack Margetson, W R Bloxam, F A Little, S S Marling, W^m Davies, R J C Little, Philip Jas Evans.
Mr Bloxam reported that he had in company with Mr William Davies inspected the slip of the wall adjoining the highway at Eastington and they had come to the conclusion that it was more than probable the wall in question was put in when the Canal was constructed.
Subsequently Mr Gardom and Col Sinnett arrived on the spot and after considerable discussion it was suggested by Mr Gardom to call in an expert such as the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers to decide whose liability it was to do the repairs.
Mr Bloxam had since then discussed the matter with other members of the Committee and had written Mr Gardom pointing out that apart form the question of who built the wall originally the Highways Committee of the County Council was bound to maintain its road in such a manner as not to cause damage to adjoining properties and especially when as in this case it had raised the road above the original level and further that the Canal Company was only bound to maintain the wall in a state sufficient to support the ordinary traffic at the time the wall was build as in the case of its bridges.
In view of these facts and in order to save expense it was suggested (without prejudice) that the simplest way would be for each party to bear one half of the cost of repairing the wall. No reply had been received to the letter so far.
No estimate had been received from Bomford and Evershed Ltd re cost of dredging the Canal owing to the illness of Mr Evershed.
A letter had been received from the District Secretary of the Dock Wharf & General Workers Union asking for a further increase of 7/- per week for the Employees of the Navigation and it was decided to consult the Chairman of the Canal Control Committee on the matter.
The Canal Association had sent a Report of the Proceedings of a Deputation to the Minister of Transport from which it appeared that the desire of the Deputation for an extension of the period of Control was received most sympathetically and the Government had since agreed that no action would be taken certainly before August 31 next.
The Committee considered the question of making the financial year commence January 1^st from now so as to coincide with the accounting period under the Control of the Board of Trade and it was unanimously agreed to do this.
The Tonnage amounted to £402..6..0 since October 1^st last compared with £333..6..6 to same date in 1919 and £514..15..3 in 1914.
Bank credit balance stood at £179..2..2 whereas at same date in 1919 it was £193..5..2 and in 1914 £367..15..11.
