A DEPUTATION from the residents of Frankston waited on Mr Adamson, Minister of Public Works on Thursday morning.
The deputation was introduced by Mr Downward M.L.A. and Crs Oates and Plowman, Dr Maxwell and Mr Mason spoke on the necessity of taking some steps to have Kananook. Creek cleared out, and asked if the Government would be willing to grant £2 for £1 in the event of the residents raising £100 locally towards that object.
The Minister, whilst sympathising with the deputation in their efforts, said it would be no use spending money if the work had to be done over again in a year or two.
Money should be spent on works that would be a permanent good. He promised that Mr Kermode would pay a visit of inspection at an early date, and if possible he would accompany him, and see if some scheme could be devised that would be of a permanent character.
The deputation thanked the Minister and withdrew.
Letter to the Editor
Sir,–Can you tell me what has become of the local officer of the Law?
Is he always asleep, or only drowsy?
Does he not see motor cars tearing through the town at the rate of 20 or 30 miles an hour when there is a by-law restricting speed of such to 15 miles per hour?
Why isn’t Rip Van Winkle up and doing?
Could he not raise sufficient energy once a month, say, to prowl around at night and see all the vehicles which go by without any light at all, and are thus a menace to the public in general and to motorists in particular.
If all this is too strenuous for him, surely he could take action against the geese which daily adorn our main street. Yours etc,
Letter to the Editor
Sir,–Last week there appeared in your paper a very long letter anent the above, signed by “Local Schoolboy,” in which he starts off with a turn on the “billiard nursery for the youth of the village.”
Not being a night visitor to your little town, I made inquiries, and find that the frequenters of the above nursery are usually men of mature age, and only one youth of under 21 years attends, debarred from enlisting by want of parents consent, or so I was informed.
As to the duty of the men (“unable to go abroad”) uniting to develop the brains of the uprising generation, I am in full accord with.
Is ‘”Local Schoolboy” under the age when men go abroad ? I quite agree that training and culture are of more account, much more, than billiards at any time, only you can’t put old heads on young shoulders, unfortunately, and make them see so.
Your “Local- Schoolboy” then goes on to say that he thinks that “most of us are born with the same amount of brain power.” We may be born with the same amount by weight, but I venture to say not by quality, and your Schoolboy knows so from cold experience.
We will always have drawers of water and hewers of wood, and no amount of example or precept would make them otherwise. What would be the use of the older men trying to make a Prime Minister out of the above ?
The Prime Minister will step out for himself from the beginning, and most men recognise him at the start.
“Local Schoolboy” then suggests a local debating society, and asks if there is not a “public man in Frankston with enough go to call a public meeting, etc.”
I think you will find many such, quite, capable men, but the men in that position are usually men who have been stepping out on their own all their lives, and when they come to read the letter from “Local Schoolboy” they ask themselves, why they should go out into the by-ways to sift the corn from the husks?
Start a debating society and then practically BE the debating society. I do not know anything about the previous one, or the choral society, but think I know enough of this world’s ways to say that they both died out from the same cause – the withdrawal of the one person who was the mainspring.
As to Sir John Madden (whom everyone admires) and the other gentlemen mentioned, would “ Schoolboy “ say they started in a debating society?
I don’t think so, Everyone kicked out for himself, or those of them who have made any mark in the world.
I just fancy I hear the Dr, after doing his long round of lectures at the University, saying to one of the bright boys of the class, “Now Johnny, will you propound to the class the difference between a boathouse on the beach having the doors on the main road and another having the doors on the sea end ?”
Mr Utber could assist the propounder and no doubt a very excellent debate would ensue, whilst some of the other gentlemen mentioned could hold the scales with equal poise to see which side won the debate.
Now, Mr Editor, I take it that “Local Schoolboy” is a strong financial supporter of Frankston in its many local channels, and IS the public man who will call a public meeting and start the ball rolling. If so I’ll be as good as my word, and subscribe my HALF GUINEA.
Frankston Court of Petty Sessions. Monday 18th June 1917. (Before Mr Cohen, P.M., and Messrs Oates, and Grant, Js.P.)
DISPUTED OWNERSHIP OF GOODS,
Constable Ryan made application to the Court under Section 61 of the Police Regulation Act for an order directing to whom he would deliver certain goods seized by the police, to wit, 20 lengths of spouting, 18 sheets of corrugated iron and an iron dust bin suspected of being stolen.
The property was claimed by George Coates, timber merchant of Chelsea and also by George Davies, timber merchant of Frankston.
Mr Backhouse, who appeared for claimant Coates stated that in April last, the property in dispute was stolen from Mr Coats’ yard at Chelsea by his son, a lad of a coat 18 years of age and that Davies had purchased the goods from the lad at about half their value. When afterwards questioned by Coates Davies had denied all knowledge of the goods and had at first made a similar denial to Const Ryan on 1st May last.
On 21st May last Davies was charged by the police with being found in possession of property suspected of being stolen, but the prosecuting sergeant had withdrawn the charge.
George Coates gave evidence bearing out Counsel’s statement and described the steps taken by Consts Ryan and Cole to recover the stolen property.
Const Ryan also gave similar evidence and detailed a conversation he had with Davies when he found the stolen property on Davies’ premises on 1st May last.
George Davies gave evidence that he bought the goods from young Coates believing that he (Coates) was working for his father.
He met the lad in Frankston and ordered certain timber from him. The property in question was afterwards brought down by young Coates. Witness produced a receipt showing that he had paid £9 for the goods.
Mr Backhouse contended that this was not a fair price as the goods were worth more than £13
The police magistrate stated that under the Sale of Goods Act, unless goods were sold in the open market, the seller could give the buyer no better title than he himself possessed. In this case the seller having stolen the goods had no title to them. Davies the buyer had no title either. The Bench therefore ordered that the property be delivered to the owner, George Coates.
The P.M. informed claimant Davies that he could sue young Coates for the money he had paid for the stolen iron.
From the pages of the Mornington Standard, 23 June 1917