THE BY-LAWS! CASE.

Grey River Argus, 15 April 1911, Page 5

THE BY-LAWS! CASE.

In the Magistrate's Court on Thursday, His Worship Mr A-. W. Crooke, S. M. , heard the case :of the Borough Surveyor against John Adam Eissetihardt. The defendant" was charged with a .breach of the Borough bylaws, by making alterations to a 'building- in Mackay Street in wood and iron within the brick area without first securing a 'permit to do so. Mr Hannan- 'appeared if or the complainant and Mr Tovcc for the defendant. , Gerald Thomas. Grace, accountant for the Borough Council, said that he had not received any fee from Mr Eissenhardt in. February, but liad received a fee of .*ss for jj. permit grant in, 1909. Tnat- would, b'q- for n. sn all Avork not costing more than /50. He produced the minute of business transacted on" December Bth, 1910, when Messrs W, R. Kettle and O. TTddstrom applied for permits to build in wood. .Neither of these-- were g-irmt-ed, neither.. was .there an application from Mr Eissenhardt that evening. Mr R. Russell had been granted a permit to, erect- the new hotel at the corner of Herbert and Hospital streets in .wood and Jron. - Alfred Charles Russell, Mayor of Gfeyniouth,^said that when on DecemD'er"Bth", 1910 the applications i'cm Mjessrs Kettle land Uddsitrom were 'being slirdlu cmfwyp cmfwyp cmfvb fore the Council there was none from Mr Eissenhardt On December 9th Mr Eissenhardt submitted a 'plan of certain alterations which he proposed to make and a letter accompanied which was sent to- the Council for consideration. It was placed at the bottom of the order paper. When Cr. Petrie moved a motion that these permits 'be granted he ruled the motion out of order. John A. Eissenhardt, the defendant, said that in 1909 he saw Mr- Lord and explained fully what he intended to do to thebuilding-. The work was estimated to cost £50 but he did not do it then as he took ill and had to go away. The plan produced was what he had intended to have done. On December Bth, in 1909, he saw Mr Lord, who gave him a permit. The work was now completed and was practically done according to that plan but at an increased cost. Mr Eissenhardt then referred to other cases in which alter irons hac! been made, and to the inspection o f ' his own place by the late Mr Lord. His Worship said that there seemto have been great laxity with regaid to by-laws in the past, and this being- the first case lie fined defendant £2 with £4 solicitors fee.