A review of toll receipts, repair invoices and the two towns’ agreement finds a gap between the total in the public summary and the conditions recorded at the toll booth at Westbank Bridge. The difference does not prove that anyone misstated the file. It shows what the public count leaves out: one invoice includes a winter closure after the collection gate was closed.
The toll receipts, repair invoices and the two towns’ agreement lists 50 receipts assigned to a dated repair line; the previous window lists 53. Marek Stone checked both against posted terms set beside signed receipts and final invoices. The source was checked against a second copy held by Marek Stone. No dated correction to either copy was present when the comparison closed.
The toll keeper counts each calendar day. The neighboring council says a closed span cannot accrue a crossing fee. The office has not supplied a separate measure that would settle the disagreement, so the two explanations remain competing accounts.
This report supports a narrower finding: the count is repeatable, but it is not enough to decide whether a town can charge a crossing fee on a day when its bridge was closed.
Alimited trial begins under the same public measure used in the old file. The Year third, cold harbor window 2 file remains open for its scheduled decision. The two treasurers will reconcile receipts with the bridge closure board.
