THE SOAVENGERING CHARGES.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2065, 6 October 1880, Page 3

THE SOAVENGERING CHARGES.

Several summonses for default in payment of these charges were answered before the Resident Magistrate yesterday. Before going into the cases Mr Hellish wished to know from the representative of the City Council what had ' been done in the cases of the Church Pron';j Trustees, whose counsel some time back raised several legal points for the defence, which he contended were fatal to the powers assumed by the City Council in the collection of moneys for removing night soil. On that occasion tho objections were stated at some length, and leave to appeal being given, a pro forma judgment was given in favor of tho Council, on the understanding that the matter should be taken before the higher Court on the earliest possible opportunity. He had heard nothing more about it, however, and he should like to know what caused tho stoppage. The town clerk was sent for, and explained that the cases mentioned by his Worship had been settled by agreement. The Church Property Trustees paid the amounts claimed by the Council, and the Council paid the law costs incurred by the trustees. This course had been adopted because a new bylaw was being made, which would settle the liability of landlord and tenant therein, and the delegation by the Board of Health of their powers to the City Council would cure other defects in the present system. It was felt to be a waste of money to prosecute an appeal when before a verdict could take effect the points of dispute would be removed. The cases to be heard that day were simply to clear off arrears. His Worship said the explanation was so far satisfactory, as that it promised better management for the future, but he felt great reluctance in having to support a by-law that he was almost sure was bad. These cases ought to have gone to appeal long ago, each case he had heard had very good grounds for it, and, on more than one occasion, he had given every opportunity for the test. He had just enough doubt to compel him to support the Council against his inclination. He ought not to have been placed in that position, the matter should have been set at rest long ago, and he felt that the City Council might, with advantage to everybody concerned, have themselves taken steps to put it right. The matter then dropped. Some farther discussion took place on the subject this morning. Mr Deacon applied for a rehearing of City Council v Deacon decided yesterday in the absence of defendant, which was occasioned by mistake. Mr Harper, who was present, said the terms upon which the appeal against the decision ijj-the suit against the Church Property. Trustees had been abandoned had been incorrectly stated yesterday by Mr Haskins. Tfid trustees did not consent to pay the chargee demanded by the City Council. What they did agree to do woe to withdraw the appeal, each party paying half tho costs incurred so far in the prosecution of the appeal. Mr Haskins, “who was also present, produced a paper which he said contained the substance of a conversation by which the arrangement was made. [lts contents were similar to the statement made yesterday by Mr Haskins.] Mr Harper again said no sued agreement had been intended. Mr Hellish, before considering Mr Deacon’s application, wished to know whether it wap the intention of the latter to appeal P He had almost stepped out of tho way to give an opinion as to the vices of the by-law under which these chargee were made ; everybody grumbled at its operation, but still nobody was found to take the matter up in a practical way. In the meantime, as he had said before, he had just enough doubt to compel him to support the Council, and his judgments would be for them, leaving those most concerned to upset them if they could. Mr Haskins said he should oppose the re-hearing. Mr Deacon was understood to decline the responsibility of appealing, and no more was said.