SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1576, 21 October 1912, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

WRIT OF ATTACHMENT SOUGHT. BUILDING BY-LAW BROKEN. Honour the Chief Justice.) "Absolute "patchwork—a' real ■ makeshift put . without 'any permit anil without 1 any supervision hy the council." This was how-' the. City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) described a building when in the Supreme Court on Saturday he asked tho Chief Justice (Sit Robert Stout) to', "attach". Joseph James Moore, the owner of the ■ building. The full grounds on which . :the application for writ ot" at-tachment-was made,' Were as follow:— ■ 1. That , by a writ of- injunction, issued on July 8, 1912, the defendant was restrained from occupying or permitting or allowing any other person . to occupy a building (owned by him) fronting Sutherland Road, Marauui. 2. That tho defendant has made default in-, complying with lilo grovi- ' »ioiis ; of the writ of injunction by permitting some person or persons unknown/;to occupy the building. 3. And upon the l -further grounds appearing in the affidavit of Robert M'Kejizi® (corporation inspector). The defendant (Moore) appeared in person and declared that he had obtained a permit. • Mr. O'Shea said that the plans lind specifications had not been followed and Mooro :had never obtained the necessary certificate to allow of tho building being ■occupied. • His Honour (to defendant): You must realise that you can't set tho law at defiance. ,'Tf you don't obey the law you must go. to gaol.' After, a little further discussion, his Honour proposed to adjourn tho case for a week .to give Moore an opportunity of complying with the law, as. Mr. O'Shea stated that tlie council was willing to allow the'building to'stand if .certain alterations were carried out. Defendant: I was going to ask your Honour to go and look at the building. His Honour said that it would be of no use;'as he was not competent to judge such a', matter.' Defendant:' I say the alterations have been cjnried nnt. He added that it seehied as if • tha corporation wished to drive him out of .the conntry..His Honour said that was. nonsense, the City Council was only obeying its duty in seeing .that "jerry buildings'.' were not going up: in the city. Mr. O'Shea remarked that defendant's action arose partly from ignorance and. partly .' from contempt. There had been an idea among some people that,if. they broke -the by-laws they would be fined anything from ss. to JES and hear no more of the. matter. If defendant complied with the specifications iii-the the corporation would be satisfied. His .-Honour advi»?d defendant to .do what was ihecessnry,'and .t-omo back next Saturday, with the .accessary proof. "If you hsiyc> : iiincle the'alterations," said his Honour, ."it. will .he all- right, but -if. not von will have to go to gaol." . Defendant: AVhat is'the term?' • Mr. .O'Shea: Indefinite. ' /: iHis .Honour: ..You will 'haVe to., stop there until the work is done or the buildins pulled dowiu. ' -, Defendant: Supposing I. don't interfere with the building at all? His Honour repeated that defendant would have to stop in gaol until the. building was -pulled down. Defendant: I will havq to put my things in order, then. ,

PRISONERS FOR SENTENCE. i '' ■ ' ~~. -'-"m THE CATTLE-STEALING CASE.;.;; ■ In the Supreme. Court: on Saturday morning, the Chief S Justice>'{Sir; Robert Stout) "w%s to sentence-'two prisoners, who. had been before him en the 'previous i morning) but whosesentence- had been deferred. Mr. H. H. -.Ostler,' of the Crown Law Office, represented the • Crown , .:■.;■■'• • '.. Frederick Baile'y;,Muir, ; for "whom Mr; C. H. Treadwell.appeared,'."wa3\'further remanded for a week oh four charges of forgery and uttering, "This ". step'.was taken in order to-give counsel'an opportunity of obtniriing .evidence 'as to : prisoner's character ,in .recent, years., : A married man, named Orthbert. William Bridge, ivho";had, pleaded.guilty ,_. to fivo charges of - cattle stealing, was admitted to probation.. . • ' ■ . ■ '.' : Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared' for the prisoner, stated that two of the men whose cattle* had been stolen, had informed him that they would be pleased if . Bridge received lenient, treatment. "■."■■■ His Honour took into consideration .the previous good character of the prisoner, and sentenced him to twelve months' probation on the first charge, while on the other four charges he was ordered to come up for sentence when called'upon. Prisoner would have to pay the costs inenrred in the recovery of the cattle, and also the costs of'tha prosecution,, the .-pay-' ments to extend over' the period of probation. • -..'■,• ;: . ■'.-'.... ■; STAROF CANADA" CASE. . HEARING OF LEG AL ARGUMENT.'.' (Before Mr." Justice -Chapuian.) , ' Lengthy legal argument was heard in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Chapman •. nu Saturday in the case in which the Tyser Line, Ltd., and J. Mann Hart (master of the Star of Canada) are proceeding against, the Gisborne Shcep- : farmers'- Frozen Meat Company, Ltd., to recover the sum of-,£5824 alleged to be due for overcharge for lighterage in connection with tlia salving of the Star of Canada's cargo. Sir John Findla>, K.C., with him Mr. D. M. Findtay, appeared for plaintiffs, while Mr.-C. P. Skerrctt, K.C., with him Mr/ Spronle, appeared for defendants. The circumstances surrounding the wreck of the Star of Canada are well known. After the vessel had gono ashore on a Tocky coast off Gisborne, a large ..portion of her cargo was removed -in. lighters. The '.Gisborne Sheep-farmers' Frozen Meat Company. Ltd. (defendants) were paid .£8383 i'or lighterage, and the Tyser Company and Captain Hart (plaintiffs) claim, that the amount, .according to the Gisbonu , rates, should'have been .£2539. In. defence it was contended that the charges .were fair, considering the ; nature of the work (the men receiving-up to is. per liour) and that the charges were practically agreed to. . . r* Decision was'-.reserved.