MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 203, 25 September 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before A. S. Collins, C. de V. Teschemaicer, and W. Oldiiam, Esqs., J. J.P.] Breach of By-Laws. W. Millett was charged by Constable White with leaving his cab unattended in the public street on Saturday. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and argued at great length against the legality of the bylaws. These, he said, and quoted authorities in support, must be strictly interpreted according to the letter, and they must also be reasonable ones. The one under which the present charge was laid stated that "No driver shall misconduct himself by leaving his vehicle unattended." Now, according to the 3trict interpretation, a driver could never leave his vehicle. Wheu he had taken the horse out and placed the trap in the shed for the night he must remain by it or render himself liable to a penalty. This was clearly unreasonable, and, therefore, the by-law was not legal. He should like the Bench to decide the case entirely upon its legal merits but he would aho proceed to defend it upon the facts. He then called the defendant, who stated that he was about to strap the wheel before going into M'Gee's Hotel, when Mr Haddow, who was passing, said, " Oh, never mind that, I'll look after the horse while you go in." He was in the house two or three minutes, and Mr Haddow was outside near the cab when he returned.— Mr Iladdow corroborated this evidence. The case was dismissed, the Chairman warning the defendant to be more careful in future about leaving his cab in charge of a bystander. A. Kitching was charged with a similar oft'ence at the Port. Constable Beattie who laid the information stated that defendant left his t-ab for 20 minutes, having first strapped the wheels. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, and stated that he was under the full impression that m accordance with a resolution passed by the C-ty Council at its last meeting he was justified in leaving his vehicle unattended provided he strapped the wheels, Th«

flefendant in the former ease had been told that this would be .sufficient by Councillors Little, Hurley, and Trask, and the present <lefend4nt by Councillor Crewdson. The Bericn dismissed the case as it was evident that the defendant entertained t\ie impression that by fastening the wheels lie was actiug within the law. There was, however, nothing in the ;by-law3 to that effect, and it must be understood that fastening the wheels would uot justify the driver in leaving his vehicle unattended. In the preSent case: however; the defendant clearly thought he was complying with' the' lolw, rtud therefore they dismissed the case. Henry Tasker was charged with leaving his spring cart unattended iv the street. Defendant admitted the offence, pleading ignorance of there being any law in existence forbidding his doing so. Fined 10s and costs. The same defendant was charged With driving without lights. This offence was also admitted, and the same plea urged. Fined Is and costs. Fleit v. A dridge.— Action to recover £1 4s, balance of water rates dud. Judgment for amount and costs. Corrigan v. Brooks. — Action to recover £2 for board and lodging. Judgment fo amount claimed and costs.