Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRISTOHTTBOBL THtTBBDAY, SePTKMBKE 1. [Before J. Nugent Wood, E»q., B.M.] Dbuhkehnbss —Ellen Boyle, who had only just left the reformatory, now pleaded guilty to being drunk, and on her promise to return to the institution, she wn cautioned and discharged. A OITX COUNCIL OBIJTINAI, BUIT. Damage to Oitt Pboferty.—Thomas Lester and Herry Hodge, cabmen, were charged with an offence of this nature. The vehicles driven by accused while going down Manchester Btreet had come into collision, the drivers were thrown to the ground, and one of the cabs ran into a lamp post at the corner of Martin street. The post waß broken off, and now the City Council sought, by means of a criminal action, to recover the amount as damages, which it had cost to replace the lamp. In a civil action heard the previous day by Mr Wood, he had deoided that the damages had been the result of an accident. He now ruled, thereforo, that clause 27 of the City by-laws, under which these proceedings were taken, referred to damage by careless driving, and could not apply to the case, and if it did, a penalty would have been inflicted, which of course would not go to the Council. There seemed to be grounds for a civil action in the case, and he recommended that the charge be withdrawn. Sergeant Mason agreed to this, saying he would confer with the corporation officers as to further action. Case withdrawn. A CITY OOTTHCIL CITIIi SUIT. Civil Case.—Oity Council v Haigh, claim £3 13s 9d, for rates, scavengering charges, and costs incurred in sueing for the same, on certain property, due in 1880. Mr Loahy appeared for the Council, Mr Joyce appeared for defendant. It appeared from the evidence that defendant was lessee of tho property, but had assigned that lease to another party, who, for fourteen years, had occupied it, and was actually in possession at the time when the rates wero levied for, defendant having received in that time no benefit from the property whatever. The assignee had bean sued for these rates, and judgment had been obtained against him, but the judgment had not been enforced. Afterwards the assignee had given up possession, which had fallen back to the defendant as lessee. When the tenant cleared out the freeholder of the property had been applied to for payment of this olaim; he had, however, repudiated the liability, on the ground that defendant for twenty-one years—the term of his lease—was, for the purposes of rating, the owner of the property. The Council appeared to have taken this view of the matter, and hence the present action. The Magistrate said tho wrong course had been taken by the Council, and their suit must fall to the ground. In the first place, a judgment had been given against another man for this amount, wiiich had not boen acted on. Failing their reaching that occupier, the Bating Act gave a power which ought to have been made use of. The property, after a certain period and proper notice to the owner, might have been sold in satisfaction of the debt ror rates. He was not giving his opinion as to who was the owner, but it was quite clear that the proper steps had not been taken to make him—whoever he was—pay the rates. Plaintiff nonsuited with cost. Mr Joyoo applied for his professional fee. If any professional man had been consulted, this action would not have been brought. He had been in attendance on two days, and the least the Council could be expected to do would be to pay his fee. Mr Leahy said of course he was merely acting under orders. His Worship declined to allow tho fee. In these oases oosts did never tell on any particular persons, the ratepayers always had to put their hands in their pockets and pay. The bill of the Council as par plaint was as follows : Mr John Haigh, William street, Dr. to Christchurch City Council. To general rates on property in Durham street for ye»r, 1880 ... 2 0 3 ~ costs incurred in sueing tenant* ... 0 7 0 „ Bcavengering charges for threequarters ending March 31st, 1881 0 19 6 „ costs incurred for sueing tenant ... 0 7 0 £3 13 9

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GLOBE18810901.2.17

Bibliographic details

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2312, 1 September 1881, Page 3

Word Count
711

MAGISTERIAL. Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2312, 1 September 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL. Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2312, 1 September 1881, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert