The Salvation Army Prosecutions.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1587, 21 December 1885, Page 2

The Salvation Army Prosecutions.

THE INFOU.U aTiU.no DISMISSED,

(Napier News Dec. 18th.) The lUsiileu't Magistrate G. A. Preeee Esq., this morning gave his decision on the Salvation Army cases heard last Monday, wheu certain members were charged with breaches of the new byelaw, to regulate street processions. His Worship after referring to the evidence against thosa charged " with marching, and the arguments of their counsel m defence, proceeded to deal with the case against the two drum tners, 4 Ruwe and Forrest, and on this case he gave judgment, the ;reat of? the informations sharing m its fate as a matter of course. '...', -■' This is a case, he said, m which the defendants Rowe aud Forrest were charppd with a breach of bye-law No. 26, of the. Borough of Napier. It was proved that the defendants were beating drums m the streetn,. xnd that no permission had been obtained as required by the by e-1 aw. The Cuonsel for kh9 defendants urged that if clauses 1 and 2 could be read together the information must be bad ; that the bye-law was hltogelher unreasonable because under it • person is not even to sing m th« streets; that there is no law against carrying torches, that the bye-law would prevent the band playing m CHve Square without permission of the Borough Council ; that it is against the Constitution to prohibit music ; that the organ-grindwra at Home are not prohibited m large cities, and there is no. enactment to stop them ; that the Police Offences Act ad' mits the right of singing songs m the streets— it only prohibits the singing of obscene songs ; that a steam whistle, or a foghorn may be a nuisance, and dealt with as such ; that the bye-law was unreasonable and illegal ; that if there was an offence, the playing of instruments aud march ing was on*» offeuce. (In support hequot-d Burn's Justice, vol. 3 pp. 519-522; Law Reports, Chancery Appeals, v<»l. 4, p, 388 ; tiichbold v. Bar'.rington, Law Reports, Equity vases, vol. 5, p. 25: Price r. Godfrey, N.Z.L.R., 1884, p,300; and Harrison's Digest.) la brief — that there* was no evidence of t> nnisance ; that the defendants ouly asserted their right ; that there was no •power to make application to the Council for .permiwion on the Ist, as the Council only Bits on certain days, and it could not have given or witheld permission until the bye- law came into force. If the Council had the power to prevent a procession it was unreasonable to make it apply to the whole Borough, and it was^ unreasonable if m restraint of traffic. There was no evidence of nuisance, a simple procession is not a..' nuisance. The defendants only asserted their own right. There was no possibility of applying to the Council for ' permission to hold the precession on the Ist, as the Council only sits on cvrtain days. They could not have giv«n or witheld permission until the bye law came into force. I consider the BorougH Council has the power to make a byelaw to prevent or regulate anything which is a nuisance, or which is calculated to aunoy the public. The case of El wood v. Bullock shows that thig power should be exercised m a reasoh«blo manner.— (ln this case a Municipal Council at Home passed a bye-law, with all due formalities, forbidding th» eraction of booths for show purposes within the borough, without license from the Mayor, and the bye- law provided that m case complaint was mad* m writing by three persons residing within 100 yards of a booth that had been licensed, the license must be revoked. Lord Coleridge declared thii provision unreasonable, inasmuch aft while three persons might complain of a. booth others living as n«ar;miKht consider it a benefit, and a jury sbhuld decide between them. ) In that case the power of -giving the license was vested iv the Mayor. Could it be said that, iv the event of a circus or other company .visiting the town after the meeting of the Borough Council, it was reasonable they should have to wait a fortnight before their application could be conridered? or that any people residing io> the town and wishing to form a proces-^ sion should have to wait such a time before their application could be disposed of? I think the power should be vestod m the Mayor,' and that the fact of it not being so vested Would tend to breaches thereof. Tfie bye-law is unreasonable aud therefore void. I would recommend the Council to appeal, but the, cases are dismissed.