PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 296, 1 December 1862, Page 6

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28xh. [Continued from the Daily Ti'ines of Saturday,] TOWN AW» COUSXRV POLICE OKMnaNCS. The House went into Coram ttee on tbfa Bili ; Mr' HEPBURN in the chair. Clauses 1 to 11 were agreed to with but little discussion and slight alteration. .: Clause 12, sub-clause 2, was—" Leaving auy hole, excavation, or dangerous formation,- in or near any public place or thoroughfare, without fencing or enclosing the same, or keeping a light burningupon iscH'h formation-from sunset to-sunrise."': Mr CAIIGII.L said that this might do very wej.l as a punishable offence in towns; but it might be'exeeedingly awkward on the diggings, where many holes must, no doubt, be lefV, open, near public thoroughfares.' The penalty, too, might-be £100, or six months' imprisonment. If such things were acjrcrvi t<\ tii.'Tt: would redly be some reason for the remark that had been made, that the Council would go on legislating until they would find themselves and all the lieges in gaol. Those were, indeed, swinge ing1 penalties for offences barely defined. The PROVINCIAL.SOLICITOR said that the Lioo wsiS the maximum ; but every ca.se would.have to be judged of by two justices, and the penalties inilieted would be in proportion to the gravity cf the offence. . Mr HARDY hoped there would be a reduction of the fine ; it ou^hf not to be left to the discretion of magistrates to inflict such fines. Mr C'AIiCiILL urged that clause 12 should be included in the list of those not to come in force except in district:) proclaimed by the Superintendent. It must be remembered that many magistrates had been, and others urijzht be, appointed .hastily, without consideration, avid without any guarantee for sound judgment or diac-etiou on their part. The Council would be making a wbip to flog themselves, by putting fcijfth extraordinary powers into the hauds cf innfristrates in all parts of the country, The -1-ItOVIiVCIAL-SOLICITOR aereed to, include thU clnu.se in the proclamation clause. Mr HARDY {moved a.s an amendment, that the maximum fine be reduced to £20, and the imprisonment to two months. The PROVINCIAL 'SOLICITOR admitted that it would be monstrous if one thought of inflicting p, fine of £100 for throwing- a cat into a river. But suppose an act done J*y which the stream on which the population of a district depended was polluted, and the people were so deprived' of its use, •would not a very heivy penalty bn called for'1? < Mr CAIIGILL considered that £10 would .be a suiii/ient fine for any of the offences named in the clause. It v- asanvizing, that a po-sible fine of £]00, for iUiy of them should be proposed, for they wrr; offences only wl ieh might po sihly lead to injury to ! peraon or properly. The Council- .should take care thyydid not ctvutc the idea that they were legislatingfor tiit- public as if tiiey were enemies, instead of being merely guardians of the public interests, lie! seconded the* amendment. Tho modificaticn was consented to,jnd the clause was approved of. On Clause 13, the catch-words of which are "Penalties on persons commuting offences with horses or vehicles," •■■:-■ Mr CAltGIf-L said there was really an alarming coolms ai out the way in which heavy penalties were being proposed. Some of the provisions of this clause would do very well in towns, but they would never suit in the country. Any person "driving- on tho wror.fy side of the road," was for the first oifeuce to be liable to a fine not exceeding. .LlO ; .but. for a second offence, the p*n;ilt\ must be not less than LlO, and ruight.be L2O. The clause created a series of rir^ative misdemeanors, and made them all punishable by these tremendous penalties. It was positively an (.Hence by the owner of a dog, if it should be at. large and "rush at or attack any other animal." These were many little dogs which seeing- other little dogs pas;; v.-ould rush at them, as a matter of course-! Mr HARDY wou'd support the cluuse if ,thg fine for a second offence wasmaUe any sum not exceeding LlO. . , f ' ■ Mr CARGTLL said that the clauses were perfectly monstrous. They ought to be' all re-considered by the Government. ' ' Mr HO WORTH conMnot see why a man should not bn allowed to ride or drive on any part of a road, so long as he was not pjiKpiiifv some other vehicle or rider. Yet he was to be finable if, at any time, he' got upon what the clause called " the wrong side,' no matter how convenient his going there might be. Many of these offences were provided for in the Roads Ordinance. If the existing law was-insuffioient, let it he amended, not over-ridden by some sweeping general emiclinent. Mr HARDY said the Roads Ordinance could not be «cfed on without the consent of the Roads Board and that was difficult to get. ; -"■' The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR believed it quite right thatlhfere'slibuld be'in bne'general code a view of all these offences. Mr IT A.RDY pressed for a reduction of the fine. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR paid that'the existence of power to inflict a heavy fine would induce greater care on the part ot persons who might otherwise be inclined to offend ; and much good was undoubtedly done, when a small fine was inflicted, if it could be intimate*! that a repetition of the offence would entail a heavier fine. Mr CARGrILL said that they -would be holding themselves'up. to the scorn of the community, if they enacted that, on the repetition of some of these petty offences, magistrates were to have no option.but to inflict a fine,of LlO or to send the offender to prison. To do so would be to make laws that would grind the people into the dust. He protested against it altogether. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR consented to adopt Mr Hardy's suggestion, to make the fines net more than L 2 for first offence, and not more than LlO on repetition. On Sub-clause 7, (Clause 13,) relating to the turn--1112: loose of any horse or cattle upon any public road or thoroughfare, Mr CARGILL moved that it be struck out altogether. It would never do for the country districts. Mr REYNOLDS said the Government considered the sub-clause a most important one. Mr L'ATERSON would very much regret that it should go forth that the House was in any possible way not opposed to allowing cattle to stray on the roads. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR said it was easy to turu such provisions into ridicule, but it could not be supposed that the magistrates would not take into 1 consideration the circumstances of each case, and proportion the fine to it. Mr WALKER moved as an amendment, to confine the operation of the clause to the roads or thoroughfares within the precincts of proclaimed towns. Mr HARDY seconded tl>e amendment. The PROVINCIAL SECRETARY said that there were many complaints from the country as to the absence of such a provision ; and he hoped tho mover and seconder would consider the interests of their constituents, and not press the amendment. Mr CARGrILL repelled the insinuation that they had any desire other than that of doing their duty. He objected to these very stringent provisions, because he believed they would be injurious to h:s constituents, and that a majority of them would be opposed to the clause. The PROVINCIAL SECRETARY only implied that it, would be for the benefit of the honorable'gentleman's constituents to allow the clause to pass • and lie again entreatel the honorable member, for the sake of tiiose constituents, to adopt that course. A division was called, and the result whsAyes 5: Messrs. Walker, Martin, Cargill, Howorth, Hardy, and Taylor. Noes, 8: Messrs. Kiigour, Paterson, M'Glashaa, Taylor, Rennie, Todd, Dick, and Reynolds. The amendment was therefore negatived. ; Upon the suggestion of Mr TAYLOR, the clause was modified by the use of the term animal, instead of the original words, and it was then agreed to. Clunse 14, sub-clause 8, was as follows :—" Or committing any injury or damage to any property, whether private or public, not herein provided for, tho injury done not being under the value of 20s. ;" the liability being to a penalty not exceeding £20, or to imprisonment not exceediug three months, " provided that nothing hereinbefore contained shall extend to any case where the person offending acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do the.act complained of." ; Mr C ARGIL L moved thnt the sub-clause be struck out. It was simplj preposterous. Mr HO WORTH seconded the amendment. The clause was wholly superogatory. The people of Otago were under English law; but the Council were acting as if such was not the case. " The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR said that they were making a code of laws for magistrates who often could not refer to books. Here the offences were plainly stated and the penalties fixed. He had no objection to insert the word "wilfully" after "or.'' .Mr CAIIGILL would press his" amendment.Llf some sweeping general provision was needed, let it be provided at the end of the bill that any person committing any offence against person or property not provided for, should be subject to be fined and" imprisoned. That would cover everything by one cast •f the net. ''~ :~ ; Upo a division, the numbers were—Ayes, 3 : Messrs Howorth, Cargill, and Walker. ; Noes, % : Messrs Martin, Todd, Rennie, M/Glashan, Kilgour, Paterson, and Reynolds. The amendment was therefore negatived. V, • \ Mr WALKER pressed to have the penalty reduced from L2O to LlO, and the imprisonment ffdm three months to a month. '■■:''■ '■'.':■ I

The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR consented and the sub-clause, as amended, was agreed to. i Clause 16 has the following catch-words:—"Pen-* alty on persons destroying property with intent to j;teal,.or retaining or disposing of property obtained as workmen. -Perfcbris- offering such property for sale may bearrested." , - ;-. ;'i Mr HOWORTH .said that these, offences were felonjes punishable by the law of England, and the Council hadno power whatever to alter that law. He would once more advise caution. To interf- re in the way they were doing, where they Jiad no right or -power, was at the least to waste time : for when this Ordinance, supposing, it to be passed, ; was sent up for the sanction of the General Government, it was as cc! tain lobe disallowed as any Ordinance ever was. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR was of opinion that these clauses were perfectly legal.. It would be found to bs provided that where the nature of the offence. made- it indictable, it could be so treated—-the adjudicating magistrate might .com: mit the defendant for tr'al at the Supreme Court But there might be cases of so trivial a nature, that it would be right for the magistrate to proceed. It must have occurred to --many.honorable.members that cases had been tried in the Supreme Court, which mightwith perfect justice have been adjudicated upon by the Resident Magistrate ; and that those cases had involved considerable expenses which might have been paved. To meet such cases was the object of the clause, and there wore already similar clauses in similar acts. He admitted that the Council were not at liberty to alter any Act of the General Assembly^: but he was not aware that they,were doing so .under the provisions of this Ordinance. Supposing he-waV wrong, instead of disallowing the Bill, the GeneralGovernment ought to point out thq objectionable clauses, and allow the Council to introduce an Ordinance to repeal such; clauses. He was not at all inclined to give way t:> } the General Government iv these matters. He thought that very frequently objections had been taken to bills passed by tfie Provincial Councils which ought not to have been taken, to the effect, at least, of disallowing the bills. No doubt, there bad been an amendment of late in the practice of the; General Government, in intimating what clauses were considered objectionable, and givr.njr the Council an opportunity ot repealing them. It had been done in the case of bills prepared by his learned friend (Mr Ho worth) himself. The Province might be at the expense of supporting a police establishment ; but) unless there were laws for them to carry out, tha Qi- ' tabJishment would be very inefficient indeed. It would he necessary ior the Council to stand to the bill, if ihey considered these clauses were necessary for the public protection. / Mr HOWORTH said that there were ftwer tiivial cases tried in the" Supreme Court "of Otago than in any other in New Zealand. He objected to passing Jaws for the purpose of finding work for the police.. We had a force that was no doubt efficient, but was certainly costly. There w-.s enough to do in dealing j with serious offence-, without creating,petty offences ! where the law could only be put in force by means of such an expensive machinery. The general conduct of the people of thia Province w;;s ro upright and honest, that it was not necessary to pass,lp vrs for preventing offences of this kind—redre-s, where needed, mi.grht still be sougtrtrundeV the laws already in force. The clause was agreed to. ■ '-...-' Clause 21 was as follows : —" Any person licensed to deal in fermented or spiiituous liquors, who shall seil or give any intoxicating liquors to any boy or girl apparently under the age of sixteen, or to any person while such person is in a state of intoxication, shall, on conviction of every such offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5." Mr WALKER moved that the ; clause be stru.-k out. There were many boys under sixteen years old, who were errand boys, or even drivers of carts; and it was monstrous to make it fineable for any one of the numerous class comiiig within the term dealer in ; fermented or spirituous liquors, to give a glass of ale | to such a boy. . Mr CARGILL seconded the amendment. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR wou'd divide the House upon the clause. The evil nought to be pre vented was a very great One elsewhere. Mr CARGILL quite agreed that'it was wrong to encourage drinking on the part of anybody; but very many persons failed to see harm in a glas? of beer or spirits. It should-be remembered that in the best schools at home, beer was daily given ; to the boys; and in many respectable families the same was done. He much regretted that the bill should have been so far passed; for there were many parts that must lead to its "disallowance.' He deeply iegretfe<J that "by what he must call an obstinate persistence in forcing unnecessary and uncalled for clauses, the opportunity should be lost of passing some enactments which might have been very useful, and some of which were very much called for in the present state of our society. ' The clause was amended by inserting the words, "to be drunk on the premises," and'l4 was substituted for 16. The clause was then agreed to. On Clause 24, Mr MARTIN suggested that, so many members having leit the house, progress should be reported. There were then present eight members, viz. • — Messrs Hepburn (in the chair), Reynolds, M'Grlashan, Paterson, Cargill, Kilgour, Martin, and Todd. •Mr REYNOLDS said that the Government were in the 'hands of members, but it- would be inconvenient to adjourn at so early an hour. After a short conversation, the business was resumed. • Clauses up to 31 were agreed to, with a f t w slight modifications. ....-.- On Clause 32, " Power to constables and persons aggrieved to apprehend certain offenders/ Mr CARGILL said that the clause gave really most important powers to constables, and he felt that it was exceedingly wrong to go on with such legislation with so small a house. Mr REYNOLDS agreed', that progress should now be reported. But it was exceedingly wrong on the part of members not to attend to duties they had undertaken. He would move that the. House adjourn to Monday week, to give absent members an opportunity of completing their busiue&s, so that they could attend in their places. Mr CARGILL said that if members were not ready, the business must stand over until they were. Mr KILGOUR taid that the absentees were the country members, who had frequently complained about adjournments for the convenience of town members. The PROVINCIAL SOLICITOR did not think much of the absence of country memlirs. They probably agreed with the bill—(a laugh)— and thought the details dry and technical. Mr REYNOLDS said he certainly would, on the next similar occasion, move to adjourn for a week; for some such thing was necessary to bring members to a sense of their duty. The House then resumed. Progress was reported ; and at a quarter after ten o'clock, the House adjourned to four o'clock on Monday. BUSINESS PAPER.—Monday, Deo. 1. MOTIONS. , 1. Mr Reynolds to move—" That a Select Commit tee be appointed to enquire into the whole question of Immigration, and to report to the Council on Monday, December 8; said committee to consist of Messrs Cargill, Paterson, Oswin. Todd. and the Mover. 1' 2. Mr Paterson to move—" That his Honor's Message, No. 4, be remitted to a Select Committee—that the 65th clause of the Standing Orders b» suspended in order that the committee may consist of more than five members—and that the committee be composed of Messrs Todd, Hepburn, Gillies, Steel, Fenwick, Martin, and the Mover—to call for persons and papers, and to report on Wednesday, December 10." 3. Mr Dick to move ".That bis Honor s Message, No. 5, be referred to a Select Committee, to consist of Messi-3 Howorth, Cargill, M'Master^ Gillie 3, and the Mover." ORDERS Of THE DAY. 1. Consideration of his Honor's Message, No. 2 (Taranaki). ,'" . 2. Town and Country Police Bill, 1862, to-be resumed in committee. . .3. Otago Harbour .Improvement Bill,, 1862/ to be read a second time, j , 4. Thistle Prevention ■ Bill, 1§62, to be read "a second time. . , 5. Police Regulation Bill, to be read a third time. , 6. Sheep importation Bill, 1862, to, be read a second time. . " " ' 7. Dunedin Improvement Ordinance Amendment Bill, 1862, to be read a second time. '~,.-8.---8. Dunedin Municipal Estate Bill, 1862, to be read a second time. . ... . - 9. Dunedin Building Bill, 1862, to be read a second time. , ..- , .■•:. 10. Electric Telegraplußill,. jo be read a second time. . , 11. Hospital Bill, to be read a second time. 12. Licensed Theatres Bill, to be read a second time. , < , - Chas. Smith, Clerk of Council.