Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5190, 9 November 1877, Page 2

A case was tried at the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, which deserves more than a mere passing notice. Though it only concerned an alleged “ chimney on fire,” it was not unimportant. The chimney formed a portion of a house tenanted by Hr. Robinson, M.L.C. Three witnesses swore that it was on fire for. some time after an alarm had been given, and before the fire brigades arrived., Two witnesses swore that after the fire brigad es arrived the chimney was not on fire. In other words, the brigades on their arrival found no necessity for their services, and as Artemus Ward called it, “ kindly refrained from squirting." Several similar cases have occurred lately, and in each case the alleged offender was fined. Tile Hon. Mr. Robinson’s chimney on fire, however, is not the chimney of Mrs. Rankin, for instance. The case against him was dismissed, after his counsel had kept the prosecuting authorities dangling about the Court for three hours, in consequence of repeated adjournments to suit the counsel's convenience.

In regard to his bugbear, the tramway, Councillor Maginity discovered a mare’s nest last night. He had found out that Councillors Greenfield and Macdonald were shareholders in the Tramway Company (Limited), whereas nearly a month ago Councillor Greenfield had declared that he had no interest in the matter. The simple fact turned out to be that about the 27th October Councillor Greenfield became a shareholder in the company. This was therefore quite in accordance with his statement, and no breach of the Municipal Corporations Act, which has a clause applying to public companies in which councillors are shareholders.