RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 25 November 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., It.M.) BREACHES OF CORPORATION BY-LAWS. Robert Gabites was charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with having, on the' 20th November, wilfully obstructed! Thames-street by placing thereon two. large packing cases and a quantity () f woollen goods, contrary to bye-law No 21 of the Borough of Oamaru. Mr. Balmer appeared in support of the charge, and Mr. O'Meagher for the dofence.

Arthur Toms, Inspector of Nuisances, gave evidence to having at 12 o'clock on Saturday last seen two cases in Thames-street in front of the defendant's shop. There was a quantity of blankets and a number of rolls 0 f flannel on top of the cases. He called the. defendant's attention to the matter and' requested to remove the obstruction, as; he was breaking the bye-laws. Defendant declined to remove the goods, and witness* said "he would have to take proceedings against defendant, who said " You can do so ; I neither care for you nor tho Corporation." The goods remained thore at rive o'clock, but when he came down again in the evening at about seven o'clock they had been removed. The goods exhibited were of Ivaiapoi manufacture, and were placed in front of defendant's premises for exhibition. The goods were a, portion of those exhibited by the K'aiapoi Woollen Factory Company at the Show, Mr. O'Meagher said that these goods were part of those exhibited at the Show, and Mr. Gabites, in response to a request from the agent of the Company, had exhibited them in order that the public might have an opportunity of inspecting them with a view of bringing those colonial manufactures into general use. Mr. Gabites had been under the impression that ho was not committing a breach of the bye-laws so long as the goods were not over-hanging the footpath. Possibly when spoken to by the Inspector of Nuisance, Mr. Gabites had been nettled at being peremptorily ordered to remove the goods, and had therefore rather warmly refused to remove the goods. Afterwards when he (Mr. O'Meagher) had told him that ho was committing a breach of the bye-laws, Mr. Gabites had removed the goods.

Mr. Balmer said that Mr. Toms informed hini that he had not ordered Mr. Gabites peremptorily to remove the goods, but had spoken to him in a gentlemanly manner.

His Worship said no matter how politely a public officer 3poke to some people, they would raise complaints of being "bounced.' 1 After the manner in which Mr. Gabites had set at defiance not only the Inspector of nuisances, but the whole Corporation, he should certainly not have come to the Court with a complaint against the Inspector. He would inflict a tine of Is aud 10s costs.

James Markham was charged with committing a breach of the Corporation byelaws on the 20th November by allowing twenty blocks of building stcxne to be placed on Wear-streut without obtaining permission from the Council so to do. Mr. Balmor appeared for the complainant, sincl Mr. O'Meagher for tho defendant. Mr. Banner mentioned that the defendant had previously had a permit to occupy 30 feet of Wear-street, but hud actually taken up something like 40 fs/iit. The result was that traffic was prevented in the street.

Arthur Toms, Inspector of Nuisances,, gave evidence to having on Saturday lash seen a large quantity of stono on the street, and one large block,, at \vhi-h two men were working with si saw, \vr,s deposited within fo.ur feet of tiiy footpath on the opposite side of the stivot, so as to prevent traffic by vehicle along tho street unless they encrmu.Uied on the footpath. He drew t.hv> acromion of Mr. Markham to tho maifn-, and ho said ho could not remove it just then as ho was so blocked up with stone. There were several other largo blacks of stone near the footpath on the opposite side of tho street to where the building was being erected. In consequence of the street being blocked up, the footpath had been cut up by vehicles. Ho had proviously had a permit to occupy 30ft of the street, but had allowed it to lapse,

Mr. O'Meagher said it was impossible for any one not actually acquainted with the matter from practical experience to form a reliable estimate of the largo quantity of atone necessary to be kept on the ground in order to keep the work going at so largo a.building. Ho under* ntood that it was necessary to keep 0000 feet of stone there, and it was imp.o39.iblo to find room for this immense quantity in this immense quantity in tho limited space at his command. This was especially the case when drays in with largo blocks of stone. It was impossible fop these large blocks to be placed within thfc limited space until they were cut up> and Mr. Markham lost no time in doing this. He had 33 men at work at the building and the greatest energy was shown 111 carrying on the work. Mr. Markham had done his best to keep the street clear, and should be allowed a little latitude, owing to the magnitude of the work. If is Worship imposed a fine of Is, with 10s casta.