MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2512, 26 April 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRIST CHURCH. Wbdnbsday, Apbil 26. [Before R. Beetham, Esq , R.M ] Dhttnkennbss.—Thomcs Prestan, for being found drunk while in oharga of a horse and dray, was fined 10j. Bamuel Bealey, for being drunk and disorderly in a railway oar riage was fined 20j. For a first offence a man was fined si. An inebriate, who had been under medical treatment at Addington gaol for lunacy from drink, was brought up cured, ordered to pay 10s 6cl, the cost of his maintenance while in gaol, and was discharged. Shopuftiko. J. E. Taylor pleaded " Guilty " to having stolen from tho shop of Mr Le Masurier. Cashel etreet, one coat, worth £1 Is. The records of the Court showed that prisoner was en incorrigible thief, and he was now sentenced to six month's imprisonment, with hard labor. City By Laws.—H. Roberts was charged with having committed a breach of the oity by laws referring to fi'e prevention in the " inner area "of the city. Mr Garrick appeared for tho prosecution ; Mr Stringer for the defence. The case for the prosecution was that in August, 1881, defendant by his agents, Messrs Carmichael, obtained verbal permission to remove a wooden building from one side to the other of Bedford row. The permission was conditional ot the removal of the structure at the completion of another building of brick whioh was to be ereoted for defendant on the site from which the first was to be removed. The building was removed, and the new building had been finished, but defendant now refused to take away that whioh he had been allowed to shift. The consequence was that there now stood in the " inner area" a wooden structure. Buildings in the "inner area " were supposed, under the provisions of the by-laws, to be built under the supervision of the city surveyor in a particular manner, and of specified materials, it being chiefly intended to lessen the danger from fire. The proceedings had been taken to compel the removal of the structure and to enforce the penalty provided for oontravention of the by-law. Mr Garrick, for a reason, labored bis evidence to show that the building had been, and wsib now, capable of being used as a dwellinghouse. The defence rested on several points. That defendant had not authorised Messrs Caimiohael to promise the removal of the building on the completion of the brick structure. That too long a poriod had been allowed to elapso between the commission of the offence—if sn offence had been committed—and the laying of the information, &o, but the principal contention of Mr Stringer was that the by-law was bad, inasmuch as that, while specifying the manner for building certain classes of tenements, amongst which were dwelling houses, it omitted any referanoe to the particular class represented by the one complained of. Evidence was given that the building was intended to be used as an office, and sinoe its present ownership had not been used, e-nd was not fitted to be used as a dwelling house. Mr Stringer contended that any number of offioes suoh as this might be erected of wood within the inner area. The clauses of the by-law quoted were Nob. 7,8, 9 and 18. After hearing full argument, his Worship deferred judgment.