THE ACOUSTIC DEFECTS OF THE R.M. COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2635, 31 August 1881, Page 2

THE ACOUSTIC DEFECTS OF THE R.M. COURT.

[to tiih editokj Silt, —1 was much surprised on read ing your Monday’s issue relating to the doings of the R.M. Court to see that the case Borough Council v. •UFachin. breach of Building Regulations, was adjourned to Monday, Sept. 5- Now, Sir, as the Borough Council and Build iug Regulations and nij'sclf happen to be on very good terms at present, I should like to know yon know, something about this adjourned case. Certainly, if something is not done to improve the acoustic properties of the Court, there will some da} 7 be a serious mistake made. Only fane}' what lho feclin :s of the two rowdies would have been if they had been discharged instead of being sent back for three months as they were ! That would not have been much worse than the solicitor at the same sitting, wlien Uis Worship obj ctcd to certain questions being put to a witness, making answer that he could not hear very well through the “ Court being so bad for hearing in.” Surely something could he done inside as well as outside ; if the smoky chimneys are not cured now they ought to be, as there are now no less than three different kinds of of cure’s (ons) stuck on the chimneys. A few more buildings of the same description and the fortunes of our local zinc makers would he made. Advhe them to stand the chimneys upside down, Mr Editor, an infallible cure, I can assure you, when done.— I am, &c. T. MACHIN’. [On making enquiries at the It. M. Court we learn that the defendant’s name is Malcolm and not Machin. We fully endorse all our correspondent says about the wretched acoustics, ami the other defects of the Timaru R. M. Courthouse. — Ed. S. C. Times.]