CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3197, 20 May 1873, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, May 20. (Before J. Black, Esq., and J. Brown, Esq.. J.P.’s.)

Obtaining Goods by False Pretences.— Michael Lake was charged withindacing, by certain false pretences, on the 17th May, John Allen to pay a man named Sharp L 6 Is lOd, contrary to the statute. Mr Stout prosecuted, and Mr Wilson defended. Mi Stout stated that as a warrant had not been issued, and the circumstances were not sufficient to bring home a conviction, he was willing to withdraw the case. The charge was accordingly withdrawn. Contravening the Bye-laws. —Frank Robins, of the (inn of M‘Leod, Robins, and M‘Le'»d, soapmakers, Cumberland street, was charged with having, ou the 2nd day of May and since that day, made additions to his building, adjoining the workshop of Win. Wilson, contrary to the provisions of Regulations 50 and 51, made by the City Council, in pursuance of Bye-law 6. Mr Smith appcared on behalf of the Council; and Mr Stout for the defendant.—Mr Smith said the bye-laws required that a building of wood or iron should be ten feet apart from any other, and when built of brick or stone five feet. The walls of defendant’s building were of iron, and adjoining Wilson s foundry, and thus he bad infringed the regulations. The regulations enforced a penalty of any sum not exceeding LlO per diem, if the building were not removed within twenty-eight days of the summons being served.—J. M. Massey, Town Clerk, produced the building regulations as passed by the Council on September 3, 1870. Previous to being passed, an, advertisement appeared in the Otago Daily Times, for seven days, stating that & copy of the regulations : was deposited with witness. After being passed they were also puolished, as provided in section 190.—James Nimon, Inspector of nuisances, served a notice on defendant about the building.— Mr >' tout said he had not received any notice. The only warning he got was the summons. Mr Mnith explained that unless Mr St'»ut produced the notice it would be impossible to proceed with the case. He hoped his learned friend wou’d not object to the case being withdrawn, as it had failed on a technical point, and to a fresh summons being issued.—Mr Stout would have no objection were he allowed cofts. He considered the case a good one for that purpose, inasmuch as the retaining solicitor, and all the corporation officers, mans, Ac., were brought into Court.—Mr Smith hoped the Bench Would not countenance an* application for costs. The Supreme Court rule was that were a. case to fail on a technical point, no costs would be allowed; but when.it failed on its merits, a defendant was of course entitled to costs. He then entered ■ into the case, but finding it impossible to procecd with it. Stated he must withdraw. —Mr Stout said seeing his learned friend had failed a second Line he should—Mr Smith : Apply for double coats.—Mr Stout: Precisely so, such a thing had been known before in cases of landlord and tenant. —ihe Bench would defer their deci'ion as to costs till the case closed. * ■ « T y-o V