LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 854, 28 June 1910, Page 9

LAW REPORTS.

9 RATHER A RIDDLE. CLUB HOTEL AND A TIME-WORN CLAIM. ' CORPORATION'S POSITION. Has the adoption by tho City of Wellington of tho unimproved values system prevented the City Corporation from obtaining moneys through charges on land under tho Wellington City Drainage Empowering A&t of 1804? This interesting point entered largely into a case heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday, and some rather subtlo points cropped up during tho hearing. Iu this action tho City Council (proceeding on an originating summons, and seeking an order of tho Court under which payment for' drainage u'ork • carried out on a city property—tho Club Hotel—a number of years ago, might be claimed), asked for an expression of the Court's opinion on tho low. Tho defendant was Jean Wilson, widow, of Wellington. Sir.. John O'Shca (city solicitor) appeared for the corporation, and Mr. 1»'. (J. Dalzioll for Mrs. Wilson. Tho Court was asked to declaro that tho plaintiff corporation had a claim igainst-Mrs. .Wilson in regard to urgent drainage works executed. in October, 1900, on the Club 'Hotel premises, at the Corner of Lambton Quay and Johnston Street. The council contended that thoy had a, claim against Mrs. Wilson prior to February 11, 1909, tho date on which Mrs. Wilson assigned'all her interest in the premises to J. Dwyer,. hotelkeeper, for ,£IOOO. City Council's Powers. Mr. O'Shea pointed out that under Section 15 of the Wellington City Drainage Empowering Act, 1894, if a certificate were received from a medical practitioner or an officer of tho council stating that drainage or other works were required urgently in any premises the council had power to. order the owner of tho premises to carry out the work forthwith. If a default of 24 hours took place the council might then call tenders for the work, and the cost of repairs (with interest, where payment was delayed) would bo a charge against the premises. 11l the present case, work had been carried out by tho City Council, through a contract let to Messrs. Thomas Ballinger aiid Co., and tho cost had been .£74 10s. 6d. The' Hotel: Long List of Lessees. The papers connected with the case traced the ownership of tho land onwards from the year 1871, When it becamo vested in the City of Wellington by the Wellington Reclaimed Land Act. A year later, the Wellington Public Hall Com-' paiiy, Ltd.,. which has since ceased to exist, leased the. land for a term of .42 years. In June, IS7G, a Mr. Urwin obtained a 21 years' lease, and, in 1881, this lease became vested in Charles John Johnston. By a covenant dated December 30, 18H7, between the Wellington Public Hall Company, Ltd., and Charles John Johnston and Walter Woods Johnston, the two last-named gentlemen agreed to hold the lease on behalf of Johnston and Company. In February, 1891, the land was leased to Mrs. Emily Downes, and, two years later, it was assigned to Robert Darroch. . Tho' land, in 1899, was assigned, for the unexpired portion of tho term, to Walter Eugene Manning and Reuben Baker, hotolkeepers. Mr. Manning gave up his' share in tho leaso in 1!IU0, and Mrs. Ann lurkwood then became the tenant.. Reuben Baker was next granted the lease until 1913; and in July, 1902, he assigned to Edward John Searle, while in the following. November, tho unexpired residue of the leaso becamo vested' in Christina Olsen and Henry Charles •' Green. Edward Sherratt, Sydenham. James Flewellyn, and Edward Wilson in.turn became tenants, and in 1908, Mrs.: Jean -Wilson and H. J. Williams (executors,of, the will of Edward Wilson) assigned" the' lease. to > Mrs. Wilson, as beneficiary under the will. Mrs. Wilson in turn assigned to J. Dwyer. Interesting Argument. His Honour: When was tho work done?, Mr. O'Shea: In 1900. His Honour: ADd you wait ten years? Mr. O'Shea: We have'tried many other means!' _Wo havo had other "shots" at getting it. Referring to tho definition of "owner" in the Act of 1894, Mr. O'Shea pointed out that tho owner was the person named in" the valuation roll. . His Honour: Your namo appears on tho roll. Mr. O'Shea: Tho person must be rightly named. His Honour: No,' if you say that, the definition becomes useless. ' Mr. O'Shea: Suppose your name had appeared on the . roll your" Honour? His Honour: Well, if you go making foolish; mistakes Mr. O'Shea: 'Would you havo been liable ? His Honour: I should say so, until I had my name I removed. . Mr. O'Shca: I do not think so. His Honour: This is the City Council valuation roll. You cannot come and say: "We have made a mistake." Yot must abide by that roll. Can I go behind the.definition of owner in tho Act? 3lr.- O'Shea: I say the definition milst be read: "Person.properly named." . His Honour: Have you any authority to show me that I jean go behind the Act and find out the real owner? Mr. O'Shea.: No. The council was acting as the rating authority in preparing the roll, and as the sanitary authority in doing the work. Tho two functions are separate. Ilis Honour: If you got tho names of the persons now in possession on tho roll, you . could sue them. Mr. O'Shea: I will ask for an adjournment to havo the roll amended right back. His Honour: Can you do that? Mr. DulzieH: No. His Honour: Unimproved value is supposed to bo entirely under the charge of the Government, and you cannot alter what the Government has iixed. Mr. O'Shea: Under these circumstances it is not our fault. His Honour: I see what you mean: you are not estopped. Mr. Dalziell contended that not only was Mrs. Wilson not liable, but the. corporation was properly entered on tho roll as owner of. the property. There' wiis no power, continued counsel, to varj/ the roll in the Supremo Coiirt. There were special statutory provisions which.. must be gone through before the roll could be altered. The.Court had no jurisdiction to look behind tho valuation roll. It had been open to the City Council] at any time since 1900, to have the valuation roll amended, ancj the name of some other person put on as owner. His Honour said that he was inclined to .disagree with Mr. O'Shea's argument, but he would fully consider the case.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.JI.) . MOISTURE IN MILK. I TWO CONVICTIONS OBTAINED. I Two milk suppliers, H. J. Jarvis arid F. E. Green, were prosecuted for having sold milk adulterated with water, r . Jarvis pleaded not guilty. It was explained that a carrier took defendant's milk. togi-Oif* with iniiK from other sup. pliers, mid delivered to certain customers en route, to the railway station. A milk inspector asked for a sample of Jarvis's milk, and gnre the carrier a second sample from the can for the purpose of having an independent analysis made as a 3 check on the official analysis. Jarvis fl duly received the sample, but, according a to him, was not informed of its purpose, a and placed it on the mantelpiece at home, ( where it still,remained. The official tost 5 disclosed the fact that the milk had been j adulterated with a certain percentage of j water. • i His Worship convicted the. accused and ( fined luni 205., with court costs 75., i analyst's fee. 55., the option being 48 ' hours' imprisonment.. } In the case, of V. E. Green (defended i by Mr. Herdlnan), counsel stated that his ' client had been ill with bronchitis lor,

I three weeks, and unable to supervise his I business, which had been attended to by some one else, The adulteration was ad-

mitted, but, it was urged, would never havo .occurred had Green been in charge. His Worship decided thftt a conviction' must follow. The defendant would be fined JOs., with court costs. 75., analyses feo 55., in default seven days' imprisonment. "LBADEIt OP A GANG." "The leader of a cang of larrikins" wa3 the description applied by the- police to a young man named Leslie Euster Gordon Short, who was charged: (1). That while drunk in Cuba Street he was guilty of disorderly behaviour; (2) that he resisted Constnblo Jlahoney while the latter was in the execution of his duty. The accused pleaded guilty to both offences. According tu tho report of Sub-Inspec-tor Norwood, Short had once previously been convicted of. assaulting the police, being on that occasion sentenced to .1 days imprisonment. Tho accused on Saturday was creating a disturbance ouisido tho Stasonic' Hotel, and when -Cpnstablo Mahoney .arrested him he called upon his. conipanions to como to his assistance, intimating to the constable that he would givo him "a good go for it. Tho accused protested that he was one of tho quietest young fellows in town when sober." His Worship convicted Short on each charge, fining him 405., with the option of seven days' imprisonment on the first; for the second offence ho was given fourteen days without tho option. PEOHIBITED PERSONS. . Henry James Pearman, a prohibited person, was charged with having, on two occasions, procured liquor from some person or persons unknown, and also with having assaulted a police constable—VV. J. Taylor—while tho latter was in the execution of his duty; Hβ pleaded guilty to the first two offences, but denied assaulting the constable. . * ■ The evidence- of the police was.to the effect that Sergeant Mathieson and Constable Taylor went to tho house where the accused was, and discovered him ■ in Sossession of two bottles, of liquor. He isappeared in the darkness of the backyard, nnd presently a crash of breaking bottles was heard. The police officers, with tho aid. of matches, located tho bottles near the ■ wood-heap, nrid while they were examining the fragments, Pearman camo up and struck Taylor, causing a piece of splintered wood to pierce his hand. The accused had previously been before the Court His Worship convicted the accused on all three charges. . On the first, Pearman was fined X 3, with costs 75., the option being 14 days' imprisonment; on the second charge of procuring liquor tho accused was ordered to pay the costs .of the prosecution. 3/or assaulting the constable his Worship imposed a. fine of 10s. with tho option o" U days' imprisonment.. ' A prohibited person; John Thomas Sittauer, was charged with vhaving procured liquor from some person or persons unknown. The accused, who did not appear, was convicted and fined 405., with Court cosls"7s., tho alternative being ■ seven days' imprisonment. JEHUS IN TROUBLE. Patrick Daly, charged with having been found drunk in Kiddiford Street on Saturday, while in charge of a horse and vehicle, pleaded..not guilty. Evidence given by the police showed that the accused was . observed to ■ be. stenring an orratio course along Riddiford Street in front of a car. When spoken to by n constable, he fell off his seat on to the road. He wns. convicted and fined 405., with the option of seven days'. imprisonment. Harry Tunlcy, charged with leaving his vehicle unattended, nnd without chaining lip the wheel, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted nnd fined 10s., with Court, costs 75., the option being 48 hours' imprisonment. ■ . George Richards, a cabman, who.was charged with having left his vehicle unattended and without a chain on tho wheel, while he made a brief adjournment to tho Royal Tiger Hotel, pleaded guilty and was fined 205., with costs 75., in default 48 hours', imprisonmont. COMPANIES PROSECUTED. .For failing- to. supply,tho Government with certain information, required, by statuto, to bo sent in : annunlly, eleven liability companies were, prosecuted by the Crown -Law Department, for whom , Mr, H. H, Ostler appeared. Counsel asked that the cases be adjourned till July i, as the Department wished to consider the position created by probable amendments to the statute. The adjournment was granted. THEFT OP A LAMP. Richard Duignari, who appeared on remand,, charged with, the ■ theft of a hurricane lamp, was stated by Chief l)e----tectivf) Broberg to have been previously before _the Court for assault, being on , that occasion sentenced to 11 days' imprisonment. -. He. was convicted of stealing tho lamp and fined 205., ; with the option of seven days' Imprisonment. ■ A STOWAWAY. . A stowaway, James Brown, wns charged with having travelled from Lyttelton to Wellington in the steamer Maori without having paid the fare. He pleaded guilty, and was convicted and finod 205.,'. and ordered to pay the fare,, the alternative being seveD days' imprisonment. INSOBRIETY. Eight first offending inebriates appeared before • tho Court. '.L'hi'eo wern convicted of drunkenness and discharged; four were fined os., with a 24 hours' option, while tho eighth, who did- not appear, was fined 10s., with tho alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. A femalo inmate of the Ohiro Home, convicted of drunkenness, was discharged with a caution. It w«3 stated that the master of the home was willing to take her back and give .her another chance. Luke Farrell, against whom was recorded a previous conviction for drunkenness, pleaded guilty to a second offence, and was. convicted and fined 10s., with tho alternative of .24 hours' imprisonment. / James Condon, twice previously convicted for drunkenness within tho last six months,. ( pleaded . guilty Jo-it thmi charge, and was convicted and fined 205.. tho option being seven days' imprisonment. - . - With , four, previous convictions for drunkenness against, his name, James Wilson pleaded guilty to a fifth lapso from sobriety, arid was convicted ana sentenced to 21 days'•imprisonment. Hib Worship observed that ho was a "habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Act." ■ ' . Sarah Elizabeth Winter, charged with hnving | behaved in a public thoroughfare in a disorderly manner while driink was remanded till July 4 for medical treatment. OTHER OASES. Thomas Ca'rswell, sued by James Dick, lion for arrears of maintenance contributions for his illegitimate child, did not appear. Mr. Dix, for the complainant, stated that tho defendant had given considerable trouble and put his client to some expense in this matter before making his payments.' He asked that Carswell bo ordered to pay solicitors' costs. Tho defandant would then have a moro proper regard for his responsibilities. His Worship entered up a conviction, and ordered the defendant to pay 21s. solicitor's fee, with' the alternative of 48 hours' imprisonment. Waller Whiting, who did not appear, was convicted for allowing his horse to wander, was fined Ids., with costs Is., in default 4S hours' imprisonment. Albert Ernest Pndncy, similarly charged, pleaded not guilty. He was convicted, and mulcted in the same amount.