THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1685, 15 July 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1879.

The City Council have suddenly awakened to tho fact—which has been patent to others of less exalted station for some weeks past—that a serious encroachment has taken place upon one of tho most frequented thoroughfares of the city. A building has boon for some time in course of erection in High street, and, contrary to tho practice which prevails in other cities and should here, the footway has boon curtailed in order to suit the convenience of tho contractor, in a manner which has resulted in serious detriment to tho public. Pedestrians have had for some time past to stop into tho carriage way in order to got past this particular spot, thereby running tbo risk of being hurt hy passing vehicles. But while, as wo have said, this has been patent to everyone, it was only last evening that tho City Council woke up to tho necessity of an alteration being made. Then Councillors arose and dilated upon tho danger which threatened ladies and children at this particular part of tho city—one of tho most frequented and busy thoroughfares in it, bo it ro-

memborod. How aro wo to account for this Rip-van-Winkleism on tho part of the civic fathers ? Surely they must have known of tho circumstances hoforo last evening ? Two of tho body have places of business in tho immediate vicinity; so that one is driven to conclude that, for weeks past, this annoyance to tho citizens must have been brought under their notice. Without wishing to impose unnecessarily stringent conditions on contractors who may have buildings in progress fronting on tho principal streets, it is surely not too much to ask that tho City Council shall take such precautions in granting permits as will ensure a full breadth of footway to pedestrians. In other parts of tho colony tho privilege of encroaching on tho footways is only granted on condition of tho contractor constructing a passage-way outside tho kerb, so as to leave somewhat tho same amount of room available for foot passengers as there would bo were no building in progress. This seems to us to bo only right, because it is unfair to tho public—more especially in so crowded a part of tho city —to compel a number of them to walk in the roadway exposed to considerable risk and inconvenience. Wo trust that all permits granted in future for tho enclosing of a portion of tho sidewalk will also include the condition that tho contractor shall use tho temporary moans referred to, in order to keep the footpath at its usual width. Though late in their action, tho Council deserve, as they will no doubt receive, tho thanks of many foot-passengers for tho stop taken last evening to effect tho reform alluded to.

The discussion last night on the question of tho permit to Mr. Morton to re-build tho promises in Colombo street which were tho scone of the late fire, has revealed a somewhat peculiar state of things as connected with tho building by-law. Under one of its clauses it is competent for an owner to restore a building, whore tho studs have not been destroyed, without being compelled to do so in brick or stone. So far so good. Tho surveyor to the Council, in tho case referred to, reported most emphatically that tho studs wore so damaged that no architect would have allowed them to bo used in a new building. Hence he felt himself constrained to refuse tho permit to re-build under tho exemption clause spoken of. This opinion, however, was differed from by some exports in tho Council, and, as the by-law makes it competent for tho Council to reverse tho decision of tho surveyor if they deem fit, it was decided to grant the required permission. But, and hero comes the peculiarity of tho matter, it was pointed out that after all tho bylaw was in effect practically inoperative. Inoperative that is to prevent an owner who desired so to do from defying the Council, on payment of a merely nominal penalty. Tho by-law in its penal clause enacts that any one proceeding to re-build without permission, “ shall bo liable to be fined £5.” The utter inadequacy of such a penalty to enforce obedience in a case where it might be of tho greatest importance that a building should bo reconstructed of uninflammable material, will at once strike tho most casual observer. A man owns a largo wooden shop in the centre of a thickly-built quarter of tho city, and tho said shop is partially destroyed by fire. To rebuild in stone or brick would cost him a very largo sum. But to build in those materials is perhaps imperatively necessary for tho safety of a largo and valuable block of buildings. To do the same work in wood costs but a trifle. Tet by tho payment of a £5 note, which, under tho circumstances is a mere nothing, ho can defy the Council and tho by-law. To argue, as some of the Councillors did last night, that a Magistrate could inflict a fine of £5 per diem, seems to ns utterly absurd. Tho Magistrate, with the plain and unmistakable words of the by-law before him, could not do this. It would bo altogether out of his province to adopt such a course, as ho sits simply to administer the law as he finds it, and not to look beyond, with tho view of seeing what should have been laid down. We aro inclined to believe that the case cited as having occurred in Dunedin, 'must have been under different circumstances, and that tho Dunedin bylaws contain] provisions which are absent from those of our City Council. Plainly and unmistakably our by-law states that any one offending against its provisions shall bo fined £5. Nothing more and nothing less. Having paid his penalty—as we read the clause — there is nothing to prevent an owner proceeding with tho work next morning, in spite of tho Council. Wo venture to say that, had the Council proceeded to law with Mr Morton, they would have doubtless recovered tho penalty—which that gentleman would no doubt willingly have paid—and thou they would have been in this position, that Mr Merton could have gone on with his work of restoration without troublinghimself to obtain any permit. This seems to us to bo a very unsatisfactory state of things, because cases may, and will no doubt, arise whore it will bo in. tho public interest for the Council to compel the ro-oroction of buildings in something less combustible than wood. As things at present stand, it is exceedingly doubtful whether they possess that power. At any rate it is a moot point, and as this is a subject of groat importance it may be as well for the Council, at tho earliest possible period, to take tho opinion of their legal advisor on the matter. If their position is, as was contended last night by some members of tho Council, the sooner tho power to impose cumulative penalties—which they manifestly do not possess at present—is inserted the better.