CORPORATION BYE-LAWS.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2308, 29 September 1870, Page 2

CORPORATION BYE-LAWS.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sin, —Yost rday morning I was summoned to the Mayor’s Court, and lined the sum of 10s and costs for a breach of section 21 of the third bye-law of the Municipal Council of the City of Dunedin, which runs as follows :—“ Exposing for sale any article whatsoever on any footway, or outside of any shop, window, or doorway abutting on any public thoroughfare or street.” With the decision of the Bench in conjunction with this bye-law I have no reason whatever to be dissatisfied, as I certainly had goods exposed outside my shop door and windows in George street, but these, as stated by the constable, were not calculated to cause any annoyance in the public thoroughfare or obstruction of the footpath ; hut simply bee '.use they were exposed outside for the specific purpose of attracting attention, 1 am lined as above stated, and of course prevented from resorting to this important and modern mode of doing business. I think, sir, that surely an unintentional grievance is inflicted upon every retail trade by the above byc-law, which by the way, and as a matter of fact patent to the most casual observer,' is more honored daily in the breach than in the observance. It is only through the Icnienoy of the members of the police force that cases like mine are not more frequent in Court; and I frankly admit that I need not have been there had I attended to the warning given by them to remove the goods exposed. But I contend, sir, that the above bye-law is unnecessarily stringent, and inflicts a great grievance upon a large section of the community. With very little diliiculty I presume it might he modified, and so altered and expressed as to protect the retail trade in the pursuit of business, so long as that is done without obstructing the footpath or causing any annoyance whatever to the public. On public grounds I have thought it proper to direct the attention of my fellowcitizens to this matter, w'*;ich I hope to see rectified. I am, &c., Andrew Thomson. Dunedin, September 2). To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sir, — I wish you could inform me through the columns of your journal, whether it is a icording to English law to line a mm twice for one offence, seeing that that occurred yesterday in the Mayor’s Court, before his Worship and Mr Brodic, J.P. It was the case of a carrier’s horse, that accidentally slipped its head pit was taken to the pound, and the owner paid the fee, and then he was summoned and fined 40s and costs. True, he did not appear to defend the case, owing to the Sheriff stating some time ago that it was against the law. But, sir, I want to know if justice in Otago has come to such a low ebb, that the would be aggresscr must point out the law to the administrators. 1 am, &c., Justice, [We insert the letter at the request of the writer, although from his own statement, it is plain his view of the case is not correct. Poundage fees arc not a line. They are merely payment for taking care of stray cattle. The line is for a breach of the byelaws. — Ed. E. N. ]