MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3070, 20 December 1872, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Day. (Before his Worship the Mayor and J. B. Bradshaw, Esq., J.P.) TUKSI’ASS. Charles Hill was summoned on the charge of having, on the Sth inst., illegally trespassed on the property of Charles Sonatas, and with refusing to leave the same when ordered to do so. Plaintiff failed to prove having ordered defendant to lea v e the ground; and the Bench being of opinion that the case had not been proved, dismissed the information, with costs John Scott was proceeded against on a similar charge by f-onntag, but the case was likewise dismissed, with costs. n REACH or CITY BYE-LAWS. John Knox was charged, on summons, by Inspector Nimon with having, on the 16th inst., allowed a certain coach which plies for hire between Dunedin and Tokomairiro, to remain in a public street not declared a hackney carriage stand, for more than a reasonable period, without authority or license to do so from the City Council, the same being contrary to City Byc-law No. 10. Air James Smith appeared for complainant and Mr Haggitt for defendant. Mr Massey proved the existence of the byc-law, and stated that all coaches or vehicles plying for hire to Tokomairiro should start from the stand in Manse street. William Pitman, clerk to Messrs Chaplin and Co, said that on the morning of the IGth defendant was driving a coach belonging to Messrs Chaplin and Co. It left the stables at 8.30 a.m., proceeded down George street, and. arrived at the stand in Manse street. It started on its journey for Tokomairiro at nine o’clock. James Nimon, Inspector of Hackney Carriages, said he first saw the coach near the White Horse hotel, about 8.30 o’clock. It stopped opposite the hotel about a minute, when Mr Aicourt got into it. It then proceeded south, and again stopped opposite Walker’s draper shop for a short time. He got into a cab and followed it. Opposite the Criterion Hotel it again stopped six minutes, and Mr M'Kay got out, went away, but soon returned with a parcel. He mounted the vehicle, but witness did not tlnnk he proceeded on the journey. Nicourt left the coach in Princes street. The direct lipe of route for the coach was from Mausc street south. He had laid an information Oil a former occasion against defendant, but under the wrong bye-law. The traffic had not been obstructed by the stopping of the coach on the morning of the 16th. James M ‘Ray said he was on the coach on the morning mentioned ; that he asked the driver to stop opposite the Criterion, and that he did not proceed to Tokomairiro. Mr Haggitt said that whether defendant was guilty or not of a broach of the bye-law

the information must be dismissed, because it had not been proved that defendant had wilfully obstructed the thoroughfare. The object of the bye-law was to prevent the obstruction of traffic in the City, and therefore before an offence can be committed against the bye-law it must be shown that the object of the byelaw has been frustrated by some one. It had not been shown that defendant had done so. Again, the bye-laws were designed to apply only to hackney and stage carriages plying between Dunedin and Cavcrsham, and therefore the coach driven by defendant did not come within the meaning of the 7th sub-section of the laws. The Corporation Act gave power to Corporations to enact laws to operate only within their own boundaries. The coach passed over space beyond the city boundaries, and consequently did not come under the operation of the bye-laws. He therefore held that the Bench was dealing with a question outside the authority of the Corporation; that no evidence had been given of breach of law, inasmuch as obstruction had not been proved, and that consequently the case must be dismissed. His client was prepared to admit all that was stated in evidence ; but, at the same time, it was a hard case that, while private vehie'es of different kinds were allowed to obstruct the streets for hours at a time without hindrance, a legitimate busiuess like that of his client should be interfered with, particularly after it had been shown that no public inconvenience had been occasioned. The Bench reserved judgment until Monday. _____