RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1262, 15 August 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Wednesday, August 14. * obstructing the thoroughfare. Woolfe and Austin were charged, on the information of the police, with a breach of the Canterbury Police Ordinance, which is made applicable to Westland'by the County of Westland Act. The breach of the Ordinance was alleged to have been committed by the defendants suspending meat so,astoovevhang part of a public thoroughfare. Mr Newton, on behalf of the defendants, admitted the offence. The explanation was that the meat was hanging immediately in front of the shop, and that meat had been hung- there for the past seven years. They could only promise to procure permission of the Borough Council. His Worship doubted if the Borough Council had power to give any such perm'ssion. The Corporation, though they might have certain powers under the Municipal Act, had no right to commit a breach of the Act. The law was laid down, and, though constituted under that law, the Borough Council must also be bound by it themselves. There were no provisions for them assuming such powers. Mr Newton said the Council, however, had been in the habit of doing so. Inspector Hicksou felt confident that, under the clause under which the information was laid, the Council had no such power. There seemed, he said, to be a spirit of rivalry between the firms of Hildebrand and Weber, and Woolfe and Austin, and both were warned by the police as to obstructing the thoroughfare. Next day they were both guilty of a repetition of the offence, and on the police going to Hildebrand and Weber, they produced an authority to hang meat outside their premises until the street was formed. He (the Inspector) considered the street as well formed there as elsewhere. . He had applied for a copy of the permission, and then he would proceed. It was scarcely just that one person should be privileged to occupy the footway whilo others were prevented from doing . so, and in this instance even since the summons had' been served the defendants had continued to hang out meat. The thoroughfare was not much obstructed, but passers-by^ and especially ladies, were liable to have their dress destroyed. As the others had been warned to remove the meat, he would try the .case, and see whether they had a right to continue the practice. They had persisted in committing a breach of the law, although he had given them notice, which he had no right to do. He took proceedings under the Canterbury Police [ Ordinance, which was in force in Westland under the County Act. "With respect to the Corporation giving permission to parties to obstruct the- thoroughfare, he might mention that very recently, there was an obstruction of an offensive nature in Boundary street. He sent a constable to the person offending, but the latter obtained a permission to occupy the street for three days. He had great doubts as to such a proceeding at the time, but, as the person offending thought he was justified iii occupying the street, it would have been a hardship to have had him punished, As Soon as persons were thus spoken to as to obstructions, they rushed at once to the Corporation and obtained permission. In fact, on Mawhera Quay, which was in a disgraceful state, the chief obstructions were caused by the Corporation and by others to whom leave was given ; and a great many persons were under the impression that the police were powerless in the matter. His Worship said this was a description of nuisance which had long been permitted to exist in the town, and he had often been surprised that notice had not been taken of it. There was no doubt, whatever, that parties had no right to continue such obstructions, and he doubted very miich if the Corporation had any right whatever to give permission to parties to continue the nuisance. The extent to which any possible permission might go would be to allow meat to hang out only for an hour or so on any. special and necessary occasion, but to give parties authority to do so as a general right was, he considered, altogether out of the power of the Corporation, and beyond their jurisdiction. Although the respondent in this case had received notice, the case, had apparently been brought forward as a warning to others, and under the circumstances he was not disposed to inflict a penalty, but the defendant would have to refrain from hanging meat over the footpath, and take steps to expose it for sale within his own premises. He would.be required simply to pay the costs of Court. This, his Worship remarked, was no exceptional nuisance. There were many other breaches of the Act, of daily occurrence, but no steps to put a stop to them were taken by the proper parties— the Borough Council/ The blame wa3 thrown on to the police, but they were to a certain extent powerless in the matter. The Borough Council should use every endeavor to maintain the streets in an orderly state, and to see the Act properly carried, which was not done at present, and they themselves, • especially with regard to hauling timber, were the very persona who were committing serious breaches of the Act. The Court waa then adjourned.