(the ex-Surveyor's brother) demanding payment within a week of £40 1s. 5d. due to Mr. W. J. Gant on those accounts. The Clerk replied that the demand was the grossest he had ever met with. Some of the building plans were also missing, and the rest were in great confusion. Since then, Mr. J. C. Gant had reduced the demand to £34 18s. 10d. - on the motion of Ald. Clement, it was resolved to pay to Mr. Gant the sum that was due to him on account.
As might be imagined, a resolution was passed to defend the action against the Board if the threat was carried out.Gentlemen-
I beg to enclose my account for extra work as surveyor to your Board, amounting to the sum of £224 17s. 11d., and which, after giving you credit for £85 2s. 9d., paid to me at sundry times, leaves a balance of £139 15s. 2d., which I request may be paid without delay. The conduct of your board towards me disentitles you to any consideration at my hands; and, therefore, unless I receive the amount due to me within a week from your next meeting, I shall place the matter in the hands of my solicitor, under whose advice I am now acting.
I am, Gentlemen,
your obedient servant,
W. J. Gant.
Gant and Shorter - Two very lengthy letters appeared in the Hastings News of Feb. 29th, one from Mr. W. J. Gant, the ex-surveyor and one from his brother, Mr. J. Castle Gant, a solicitor. According to the statement of these gentlemen, Mr. Shorter's report to the Local Board and his newspaper correspondence were both evasive and inaccurate, but they, in some measure excused his errors and ill temper on account of his long illness. - Mr. Ross also wrote to the same number of the News on behalf of Mr. Shorter, and asserted that the drainage plans and drainage scheme altogether were not prepared by Mr. Gant, but by a gentleman in London. Really the embroglio appeared to be a mystery!
Gant Replies. - Another letter appeared in the News, in which Mr. Gant repelled the assertion that the drainage plans were not prepared by himself, and explained that by consent and order of the Council, he employed an assistant for the purpose of getting the drawings done by a stipulated time. In his concluding sentence he said -It will be seen, therefore, that the inference sought to be drawn that the plans and scheme were not mine, because I availed myself of the sanction of the Local Board to engage an assistant for a few weeks in a puerile attempt to destroy my professional reputation. Feeling, as I do, that I have acted throughout with a concientious(sic) desire to discharge the duties I undertook, and that had the Local Board performed their prt, the drainage of the town would have been long since carried out, and a saving effected of some hundreds of pounds. I have only to ask that I shall not be again induced to answer any further statements. I deem it unnecessary to reply to Mr. Ross's letter, as it is quite apparant that he has been put forward by Mr. Shorter to divert public attention from the point at issue.
