MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 894, 13 August 1910, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CORPORATION TEST CASE. '■'.■.• DWELLING Oli WHAT?, : The Prouse Timber limited were charged with erecting .'a dwelling, in Taranaki Street 'without providing an open space at the sido or'rear as provided by section 294 of the Municipal Corporations-Act. ,'..-. '■_ Mr. J. O'Shea. appeared-for. the'• City Council and Mr. IVS. 'Western"for-de-fendants. . .'.''. ;,. -■, ■' ... '; . • .

■ It- was stated ■ for 'the -prosecution' that defendants , , .had '..'erected;- a brick factory ' in'/Taranaki , Street.. Tlio whole'of the top floor, was and not- subdivided. • ' After the. .'building had been h'nishe'd tlie lop flat was suband used as a dwelling'by tho families of employees 'of defendants. Permission ;to subdivide ; was applied for, but,was refused by the , City Council, on/ the grounds that tho Act required that .. feet of air : space shonld be provided, round .the buildings, and the sunlight should bo allowed to penetrate the' residential,-.:portions.; In traversing the case, Mr. O'Shea contended that the use of a portion of, a building for residential purposes (beyond caretakers, .and other., officials), constituted the"wiiolo '.building, ',""a dwelling within the meaning of the Act."- , - ■-. _-• ' ;..- ;■• " ■ , '■' Counsel for the' , defence sought! to show that the Act.only governed dwellings, and not business premises,. and if "a portion, of a building -was used for habitation apart from business purposes, it did not constitute tho whole .building'a:dwelling. .High land values in the city were responsible' for fiatroofs. ■. There were many buildings in the city with flat roofs, the top por- ; tions of which, are -used,'for residential purposes and" the lower portions ' as business, premises. He contended that defendants had a' perfect bright to use ft yard- connected with tlioir premises .for'< all'purposes .connected with, tlio business carried' on by them. Defend-ants-were using the bottom stories for carrying on tho business, of timber and hardware 'merchants, < and using tho yard for stacking material only. "■ Tho flat roof part; of the building was used for habitation,. and! it held that that did. not constitute, the whole ■building n dwelling .within, the meaning of the Act, that tho yard hadno permanent structures thereon, Vand that there was sufficient open-air space, in and- about, the building. ; - : -■ Judgment was reserved. , '. ' , ■.', OTHER CASES. , ' . Two first offending inebriates i wero each, fined os, with the usual option. . For driving a motor-car after dark without lights, Dclvin Jameson was .fined 10s. and costs 7s. in default lwenty : four hours' imprisonmenti For leaving their vehicle unattended. Andrew Craig, for Whom Mr. Herdman' appeared, and Albert Mildenhall. were each fined qs.', with 7s. costs, in :dc-tault-twenty-four hours' imprisonment. John''Marshall was fined 10s., with costs-75., in default - forty-eight hours', imprisonment, for riding ' a bicycle without lights after dark.

Henry Inglis was charged with assaulting William Charles . Dwight on August 6 at Messrs. Odlin's warehouse..: Mr. Jackson appeared for informant, and Mr. Kirkcaldie for defondant. . After hearing lengthy, evidence, his. Worship stated that informant was himself largely to blame, but imposed.a fine of 205., .with costs £1 Is., in default seven days' imprisonment:'/ ' ' : . ' ;