the request for the road at Claremont to be made 30 feet instead of 27 feet. This in itself was a very reasonable request; but the Crown lessee said he should not comply with such an order, and dispute the jurisdiction of the Local Board in this case, as the street was not a new one. The Town Clerk allowed the exemption thus claimed as that which he had suspected from the first. The street in question was at least 29 years old [the road was made in 1822], and the ground which the Board had ordered to be added to its width had been sold for building purposes before the Local Board existed. Several members advocated the enforcement of their demands, while others regarded a conflict with the Woods and Forest Commissioners as likely to lead to great expense without success. The road in question remains to this day only 27 feet wide, notwithstanding that legal proceedings were taken, which cost the town £36 before the case was withdrawn. To this expense Coun. Harvey drew attention as having been caused by Messrs. Ross and Putland (the latter being the surveyor) as against the Town Clerk’s advice.
Another matter in which Mr. Ross was found at fault was again in the beach question. The Town Clerk suggested the propriety of taking a lease from the Woods and Forests Commissioners between the Priory water and the St Leonards Archway, but the suggestion was strongly opposed by Coun. Ross, as an admission that the beach belonged to them, instead of, as he believed, to the Corporation. The Clerk said he could not find any trace of jurisdiction exercised by the Corporation over that portion. Subsequent necessity of purchasing a right to the foreshore proves that Mr. Ross’s contention could not be sustained.
"No Animus" but very much like it
Also, in the stone-beach case, Mace against Philcox, otherwise the Town Council, an adverse decision was given by the Court of Common Pleas on the 25th of January 1864. The substance of this decision was that the foreshore of Carlisle Parade was the property pf the Crown, and, consequently, for the time being that of the Plaintiff Mace as the lessee of the Crown land; and that the defendant had no right to place his machines there although licensed by the Town Council. This unfortunate suit also cost the town a considerable sum of money, as did the unsuccessful action at law (initiated by Mr. Ross, contrary to the advice of his friend, Ald. Ginner) against Earl Waldegrave in the case of what was called the Ellsworth’s Charity. Be it said of Mr. Ross that in none of his public movements did there appear to be any craving for personal advantages. In many he was an excellent member of the Council; as Mayor his impartial conduct was worthy of praise. His industry too, as an antiquarian and archaeologist, entitled him to -
