The Borough Council Cases

Feilding Star, Volume V, Issue 18, 14 February 1884, Page 2

The Borough Council Cases

« At the R.M. , Court yesterday, before R.' Ward. Esq., R.M. the case of J. H. Blackmore, Inspector of Nuisances for the Borough of Feilding, v i* . B. Gichnrd, J. C. Thompson, and H. Rutherford, was brought up. This was a case in which the plaintiff had laidinformationagainstthedefendants (the two last named of which are members of the Borough Council) for not abating an alleged nuisance on their properties in Manchester street. The cases in ordinary course should have come on at this sitting of the Court for hearing but it appeared that after the defendants had gone to tht ex pen so ot employing counsel and subpoenaing witnesses, the plaintiff had on Monday last, by the instruction of the Council, applied to the Justice of the Peace who had issued the summones to have them withdrawn. This the Justice did without making any allowance to tbe defendants for costs as provided by section 62 of the " Justice of the Peace Act, 1882." Mr Hankins watched the case on behalf of the Borough Council, and Mr Prior, appeared on behalf of the defendants. He pointed out to His Worship that the present case was a most peculiar one. The plaintiff, as Inspector of Nuisances, was a servant of Borough Council. One of the members of the Council, as a J. P., had signed the summonses, and yet the Council now repudiated the act of their Inspector, notwithstanding themselves having actually issued and withdrawn the informations, allowing the defe dants no costs whatever for the trouble and expense they had been put to in preparing for the hearing. Tt was pointed <»ut that great injustice might be done in such cases, and had in fact been done in this instance, as any illdisposed person might lay an information, obtain a summons for no matter what off.-nee, put the defendant to considerable oui lay. and on the eve of the hearing, go to the J.P. who signed the summons and obtain the withdrawal, leaving the unfortunate victim of probably spiteful prosecution to pay his own cost. It was not in this case Mr Prior said, even intimated that any such feelings existed, but still the clear injustice of the proceedings remained the same. Whether or not his Worship, as the Chief Magistrate of the district, had power to rectify the evil iv the present case, it was thought that public notice at least should be taken of it, so as nt any rate to prevent in future the hardships now pointed out ; and that an easy way to prevent the recurrence of such cases was upon applications for withdrawal to insist upon having both parties present or represented. His Worship pointed out that the Justice had a clear right under the Act to allow the wirhdrawnl of the informations, and he could not therefore judicially or otherwise express an opinion upou the matter, but he had no doubt the Press would take note of it.