OUTCRY IN STREETS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1847, 5 September 1913, Page 8

OUTCRY IN STREETS.

e BY VENDORS & OTHERS. PROPOSAL OF NEW BY-LAW. Street noises came up for mention at tho City Council last evening, when the By-Laws Committeo submitted tho following:—"No person shall by outcry advertise any merchandise or any entertainment in any shop or building or any street, private street, private way, or public place in such a manner as to annoy any person or persons in any adjacent building, or in any adjacent street, privato street, or private way, or public place." Councillor Fletcher asked the chairman of the By-Law's Committee (Councillor Barber) if the ringing of bells was to be included. Councillor Barber replied that that aspect of the matter had been considered and dropped. Councillor Fletcher then moved as aii amendment that tho ringing of bells be included. This lapsed tor want of a seconder. Councillor Tregear subsequently moved as an amendment the deletion of certain words, so as to make tho by-law read: "No person shall by outcry . . . annoy any person, etc." This was seconded by Councillor Fletcher, who humorously described it as "a very comprehensive amendment." Tho Mayor stated that if this amendment were carried it would destroy the by-law. Councillor Barber dryly remarked that if such an amendment as proposed by Councillor Tregear were carried jt might infringe the by-law by annoying persons in tho council chamber. (Laughter.) The amendment, on being put to the meeting, was lost. Councillor Buddie expressed the opinion that' the wording of tho by-law would not bring about tho desired effect. He moved that the whole of the words after "person or persons" be deleted. This lapsed for want of a seconder. Councillor Atkinson desired to speak to this, but was ruled out as being too late. On' tho Mayor's suggestion, ho moved tho same amendment himself. If councillors took tho trouble- to look at the wording of the by-law, ho said, they would seo that it was perfectly ridiculous. A person might create an annoyanco in Lambton Quay, but because ho did not annoy anyone in Featherston Street ho would not infringe tho by-law. Eventually tho amendment was duly seconded and carried, the by-law being adopted with the words "in any adjacent building, etc.," deleted.