MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1362, 26 June 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, June 26. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and Richard Walton, Esq., J.P.] Deunkenkss. —Catherine McDonald was fined 10s, and ordered to pay Is cab hire. Mary Edwards, against whom a long list of previous convictions was handed to the Bench, was fined 40s. One first offender was remanded for a week to Lyttelton, for medical treatment. Larceny.—John Crawley, alias Thomas Hinks, was charged with the " larceny as a servant of a watch and jewellery, value £l2 ss, the property of Samuel Stewart." Inspector Hickson obtained a remand till Thursday, in order to obtain further evidence. Driving or Riding round Corners.—The following were fined 5s each for riding or driving at street corners, at other than a walking pace, contrary to the city by-law : James Flint, James Rowe, Anless Smith, Henry Hillingworth, John Thompson, John Freney, Thomas Sherlock, Richard Kennedy, Thomas Sherlock, John Garland, Walter Harper, John Tomes, Charles Hunter, Frederick Hill, John Bonham, Thomas Parkinson, William Collins, John Templeton, John Twigger, W. G. Hartle, Samuel Smart, George Close, Alfred Croker, William Sheppard was "let off," as he swore that he had been riding a horse, and not " driving a horse and cart," as stated in the information. On the name of Alfred Croker being called, Mr Thomas said that he appeared to defend in this case, and in all the cases in which cabmen had been summoned, and to question the validity of the by-law. He asked for the bylaw to be produced, as he did not admit that any such by-law was in existence. He pointed out that there was another by-law, making cabmen liable to a penalty of five pounds if they drove at a slower pace than six miles an hour. The two by-laws were inconsistent. The Bench considered that the average pace was meant. Inspector Hickson contended that the later by-law implied the repealing of the former. Mr Thomas remarked that, as there were three or four crossings within a distance of a quarter of a mile, a driver would have to drivo furiously in the intervals in order to bring up the speed to six miles an hour. The opinion of the public of Christchurch was that the by-law was a nuisance, instead of conducing to the comfort of the people. The Bench had no doubt that it was a nuisance. Inspector Hickson believed that it would be quite sufficient if the by-law were made similar to those of other places. The by-law was produced in Court. Mr Thomas required proof that all the conditions of clause 340 of the Act had been complied with. Inspector Hickson said that by producing the by-law, with the seal of the corporation attached, he had done all he was required to do by clause 342. Mr Haskins said that notice of the by-law was advertised in the papers. A special meeting of the Council had been called on the Ist of November. He produced the first notice calling the special meeting. The notice was issued in accordance with a resolution of the Council. [Minutes of the meeting of Oct. 22nd, at which the resolution was agreed to, were read.J The meeting was held on November sth. The notice stated that the meeting was " to regulate the speed round street corners." That was the notice. The clerk wrote the notices and witness signed each one. Mr Thomas took exception to this, as the business done was not that of which notice had been given, as required by clause 82 of the Act. Mr Haskins contended that the notice was only intended to indicate the nature of the business. The Bench said it was a question whether the words " round corners" were not surplusage. Mr Thomas contended that Councillors might have been misled by the wording of the notice, and so not attended the meeting. He could produce evidence to show that one Councillor was misled by the notice. The Bench said the notice, had the words " round corners" been left out, would have been sufficient. He thought it would be well to find if the notice of the bylaw in its present form had been published seven days before the meeting, as required by the Act. Mr Haskins proved that the notice was duly published, and read the minutes of the sth November, at which the by-law was passed. The Bench said that the by-law as passed was quite contrary to the notice. Mr Haskins, in reply to a question from the Bench, said that there was an amendment passed at a subsequent meeting, but after the by-law was adopted. The Bench said the amendment must be made before adoption of the by-law. The by-law containeda " part B," which empowered the Council to apply it to any other portion of the city. The by-law had been thus applied, but no advertisement of intention to enlarge its application had been advertised. Mr Thomas contended that the bylaw was bad. The Bench was inclined to think that the notice originally given, had the by-law been amended before adoption, would have sufficed. Mr Haskins produced the notice of a special meeting convened for the 27th November, which gave the business as being '" to confirm the by-law passed on the sth of November, to regulate the speed round corners and proceedings thereon." He contended that the last words complied with the intention of the Act. The Bench said that subsection B had not been rendered valid, as no notice had been given of it. They held the by-law to be bad, and dismissed the cases. All judgments already recorded must, however, stand. Mr Mellish hoped the Council would not again pass the by-law. All the oases (numbering 32) of breach of by-law, which had been set down for hearing and had not been heard, were now read out, and formally dismissed. Sir Cracroft Wilson complained to the Bench that he had received his summons only at a quarter-past five yesterday afternoon. He thought such brief notice indecent. The Bench said it was sufficient according to the Act. Mr Hickson explained that the delay in serving summonses arose from the great number which had been taken out.