HAWKING WITHOUT LICENSES.
: | OFFENDERS FINED 40s. Ever since hawkers and carts appeared in the streets of Christchurch, the Magistrate's Court has been constantly engaged in hearing cases brought against the fruit and fish vendors for remaining stationary ia tho streets. Yesterday the cases brought before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., wero of a different nature. Harold Jones and William Columbus wero charged that, not being duly licensed by the Christchurch City Council, and not having obtained a permit, they did carry on the business of a hawker contrary to the by-law. Mr Loughnan appeared for the City Council, and Mr Hunt for the defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Loughnan said the accused had previously been licensed as hawkers, but the'' By-laws Committee had this year refused to renew their licenses on the grounds that they had persisted in defying tho Council's by-laws. To license a man who refused to abide by the by-laws, he contended, would be an absurdity. Tho question had become one of whether the Council should rule tho hawkers, or tho hawkers the Council. • Leslie Hardy, City Council's inspector, said both the defendants had been licensed as hawkers, but had continued to ply their trade, despite the fact that their applications for renewal of licenses had been refused by the Council. Mr Loughnan proceeded to lead evidence as to previous convictions for | breaches of by-laws, and Mr Hunt safd h> would admit that one of tlie defendants had boon, convicted once and the other several times. ! Mr Hunt: Did you know that the By-laws Committee .had .refused to reI ceivo a deputation of hawkers to lay their side of the case before them?—l know nothing about that. Mr Hunt (reading from a letter): "By-laws Committee decline to grant an interview to any persons who persist in defying the city by-laws." That letter is from the Town Clerk, i*m*t it? —Yes. How many hawkers were licensed this year?— Three or four. How many were refused?—As far as I can remember, only these two. Thomas Guthrie Blakely, another inspector, corroborated this statement. Mr Hunt contended that any man had a right to follow any profession ho chose, provided he was qualified for it. Tho Magistrate: That's a wide statement, isn't it? Counsel continued that tho Council had no power to refuse licenses in this manner. Having applied in a proper manner, the defendants should have been granted their licenses. His clients were poor men and could not be expected to go to the Supremo Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Council to issue them licenses. The Magistrate: I don't see that that affects this -Court. Counsel: This Court can Tefuse to punish them, at any rate. These men aro being, punished now, really because they might do something in the future. I suggest that tho case should be adjourned to allow of tho Council hearing tbeso men in their defence. His Worship: But will the Council go into the matter again? Mr Loughnan: Tlie Council has no intention of doin<r"it. Those men have '•flouted" tho insnectors. Each of the defendants was fined 40s and costs.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19140129.2.10
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, Volume L, Issue 14887, 29 January 1914, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
521HAWKING WITHOUT LICENSES. Press, Volume L, Issue 14887, 29 January 1914, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.