The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1470, 1 November 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1878.

The question of the legality or otherwise of our Municipal by-laws is becoming more and more involved. It has for centuries past been traditionally said that any skilful lawyer could drive a coach and four through any given Act of Parliament, but we fancy that the experience of the last few years has palpably shown that the process of driving any kind of vehicle through the legislation of the City Council was one attended with little difficulty. At stated periods eases are brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court, when the Corporation generally comes badly out of the controversial disputes which are invariably raised against their proceedings. Technical objections are urged, points of law based upon careless drafting of the by-laws aro built up by defendant’s counsel in the twinkling of an eye, and the usual result is that Municipal doings generally are held in contempt, and not the slightest faith is placed by the public at large upon the convex mode of legislating. Like an over-puffed bladder, the slightest legal puncture causes it to burst, much to the merriment of those not immediately concerned, and greatly to the detriment of the public interest. This is certainly a most unsatisfactory state of things, and ratepayers oftentimes, when indulging in a little municipal growling, want to know why the City Council cannot set their legal affairs in a more orderly way. To this it is, perhaps, difficult to give any satisfactory explanation. So far as we can see the Council has at its beck and call as competent a legal authority as could bo picked up in the Christchurch directory. We do not, of course, allude to the Town Clerk, Mr. Haskins who, it has been often stated both in and out of the civic chamber, has had a good deal to do with the legal affairs of the Corporation, but to Dr. Foster, the Town Solicitor. Lawyers, more, perhaps, than other men, will at all times and places hold diametrically opposite opinions upon even the veriest trifles, and when dry legal pleadings are to bo taken by a Bench composed of laymen, as the basis for their judgment in questions involving more than mere interpretations, it is not unnatural to set down as open to grave doubts the wisdom of such judgments. Unfortunately, the law affecting the jurisdiction of Resident Magistrates’ Courts is so wonderfully made that there is no appeal against any decision of the Bench, if the penalty inflicted by way of fine do not exceed the sum of £5. Thus it comes to pass, and that too not unfrequently, that largo questions affecting rights of very serious kinds cannot be settled when brought before those Courts, unless the penalty be purposely—and otherwise unwarrantably—made to reach that amount. We have before the Resident Magistrate at the present moment, anoihor of these cases, a final ruling upon which would bo of importance, as it would settle a point of great moment likely to crop up at any time. We refer to the prosecution instituted by the City Council in connection with an alleged breach of the building by-law, said to have been committed by some contractors about to erect a largo building in a main thoroughfare. The Resident Magistrate in this case appears to have taken the view that the clause of the by-law under which the defendants were charged was sufficiently valid and sound to warrant his recording a conviction against them, and, accordingly, he inflicted a fine of Is, the small amount of which he thought was quite proportionate to the magnitude of the offence, considering that the whole prosecution had originated upon the defendants being advised by their solicitors that the building bylaw, in parts or the whole, was sufficiently faulty to preclude its operation being sustained by a Court of law. Subsequent to defendants’ .counsel remarking upon the hardship to which his clients wore subjected through being precluded from carrying their case to a Supreme Court in appeal, the City Solicitorstated to the Bench that the Council would bring forward a second case of a similar character in which he would bo prepared to offer more abundant evidence on behalf of the by-law. And so for the present the matter ends, and while public is to draw its own ia-

ference by the result of these unsatisfactory proceedings as to whether this building by-law is or is not worth the very paper it is written upon, it is left to the chapter of accidents, to the temper of the Council, or to the general state of health, perhaps, of the municipal magistrates who pull the strings within its chamber, to let the matter drift or else bring it before Mr. Hellish in a shape such as will prove as unsatisfactory as it was during this week. And while on the subject of this Building by-law, we would remark that the way in which the city officials, and the police as well, allow the footpaths in the most frequented streets to be turned into stonemasons’ yards is simply disgraceful. We do not in any way object to the full width of the pavement fronting buildings in course of erection being devoted to the general purposes of the builders, so long as due provision be made for the convenience of the passers-by. As is the case in other cities, we presume that the authorities have long recognised the fact that there are many cases where it is necessary that the full breadth of the pathway should bo utilised while buildings are in course of construction. But it is very common to see stonecutting carried on alongside the hoardings when chips of stone fly all day long half across the street to the great annoyance, if not danger, of the pedestrians. At the moment we write even, anyone may witness this dangerous practice in full development in the centre of the city. Foot passengers who value their eye-sight have to give that portion of the pavement a wide berth, and take to the middle of the street in order to escape the shower of sharppointed pieces of stone which the workmen’s chisels send broadcast over the path. From this evidently lax Supervision it would appear that public comfort is somewhat at a discount in the minds of the city powers. Surely it is high time that something was done towards protecting the rights of the ratepayers. Municipal squabbles and wrestling matches are all very well in their proper time and place. We are told that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. But there is a limit to all things, and among others to the patience of a goodnatured community.