MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2657, 26 September 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., E,M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two men were fined 6s each for being drunk, one of them while in charge of a horse. TRESPASSING. Three cases of stock wandering at large were heard, in one of which the defendant was fined a shilling for allowing a cow to roam. The second was dismissed, the defendant showing that the horse whoso straying was complained of had been “ taken tor a ride ”by someone. In the third case defendant not appearing, a fine of 5s was inflicted. NO ONE IN CHARGE. For leaving a horse and cart unattended in the street, another defendant was fined ss. BREACH OF BUILDING REGULATIONS. James Malcolm was charged on summons for breach of by-law No. 12, in having converted a building into two separate ones without putting up a party wall of brick or stone. Mr Perry appeared for the Borough Council, and Mr Jameson for defendant. Mr Perry stated the facts of the ease. Mr Malcolm occupied a long wooden shop in George street, and in June last he applied for permission to make certain alterations, but his application not being in accordance with the regulations, inasmuch as a partition proposed to be built was not of stone or brick or other incombustible material, it was refused. In spite of the Council refusing to give the permission sought, Mr Malcolm made the alteration, putting up a wooden partition and making two separate premises of the building, without communication between them. This constituted a breach of the Building Regulations. E. H. Lough, Town Clerk, gave formal evidence for the prosecution, and in cross examination said the building was put up in 1864, or at any rate before 1867, when the Building Regulations were adopted. P. Dale, Building Surveyor, gave evidence regarding the application, and his reporting upon it that it was contrary to the Regulations.

In cross examination witness showed some ignorance as to the dates of his inspections of the building, but he was certain that there was no door or means of communication between the two parts of the building, through the partition, on the date named in the information, nor for a long time afterwards.

Mr Jameson drew His Worship’s attention to the wording of clause 12 of the by-law under which the information was laid : —“ If any building be hereafter erected with separate entrances or separate staircases, or if such building be hereafter converted, used, or occupied as two or more separate buildings, each having a separate entrance or staircase, then every such building shall be deemed to be two or more separate houses, &c.” The by-law was made under the authority of the “ Municipal Corporations Act 1867” and the building, according to Mr Lough’s evidence, was erected some years before that Act was passed. The by-law was of course so worded as to apply only to future erections so far as erection of buildings was concerned, and whatever might have been intended, the use of the words “such buildings” in the passage referring to conversion confined the operation of the by-law to buildings erected subsequent to the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act in 1867. His Worsli p thought Mr Jameson was drawing the line very fine,though the matter of the section could no doubt have been better expressed. Mr Jameson said his objection ought to be fatal to any charge of unlawfully converting a building erected prior to the passing of the Act, He relied upon the use of the word “such.” It was impossible to get over that. Regulations of this kind had to be construed very strictly, and in favor of the individual rather than in favor of the Corporation, Another point which he should if necessary press into his service was that while Part V. of the Act of 1867 gave power to the Municipal Councils to frame regulations for buildings, it in no place gave any definition of a building. x\s the by-law did give such definition it went beyond the law upon which it was based, and therefore was ultra vires. As the Statute gave no definition, ho submitted a by-law framed under it could not fix what was or what was not a building. He quoted from “I Court of Appeal,” case of Vivian v. Quick, p. 340, as to the construction of Statutes in such cases. The limits of statutory authority must be strictly observed and there was not a single word in Statute defining what a building is. The evidence of Mr Dale showed that these premises wore under one roof and that there was no structural severance between them lo constitute them separate buildings. In reply to Mr Jameson His Worship said he would prefer to hear all the facts of the case before saying whether he would hear further argu meat, and detendant was called. His evidence was directly contradictory to that of the building surveyor, as he showed that there had always been a door in the partition, in one position or another. The evidence being thus at variance, and Mr Dale not being able to distinctly remember the dates on which he made inspections, nor the state of the building on any particular

date, His Worship said lie would decide the case on the evidence and dismiss it. The utmost particularity as to dates was necessary in cases of this kind to enable the Court to come to a correct conclusion and the evidence on these points being so uncertain there was no need to go into the legal points raised by Mr Jameson. He thought, however, that he would scarcely bo inclined to draw the line so fine as Mr Jameson had done. Mr Jameson —I have an Ordinance here on which your Worship has thrown out case after case on similar grounds. The Court then rose.