BREACH OF BUILDING BY-LAWS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 294, 7 December 1908, Page 4

BREACH OF BUILDING BY-LAWS.

At the B.M. Court on Saturday morning, before Ml', 11. S. Fiuherbert, 5..V1., Joseph (jrupen, fishmonger, was charged on the information of the borough engineer, that he had unlawfully erected a portico over the footpath .in liroiigliain street, the illegality consisting of the erection of the said portico without having obtained the required permit. The "portico" in question was the little bit of a verandah recently allixed to the old building next .Messrs. Arums' store. Air. Quillisan prosecuted on behalf of the Borough Council, ami drew the attention of tlie Court to the fact that not only was the defendant liable to be filled in the event of the breach of the by-law being proved, but he could also be filled ,C 5 per day for every day upon which the bleach was continued.

A. 11. Kendall, the borough engineer ami inspector of buildings in the borough, gave evidence that llrupen one day approached him and said .he wanted to erect a verandah in front of his premises in Brougham street, lie advised him to see an aivhitect and lay before him (Mr, Kendai!) lh«' plans of the proposed structure, for wiihuut such a plan or sketch he couM not i.-Mie the permit. Defendant complained iu.it liuu would coat money, and he th'.n t<;id him thai he could yet a reliable builder to submit a plan. The verandah was erected without a permit. The verandah was a cheap ait'.iir. the roof being covered with iron that had been in a lire and not since painted. .Neither had the poits or other timber been painted. lie would never grant a permit lor -such a verandah. He had since written to the contractor, Mr llowson, requiring him to pull down the structure, and proceed in a proper way to erect one for which a permit could be obtained, lie received no reply. lie required that the verandah or portico should be at least eight feet above the footpath. Cross-examined by the defendant, he said Unit in the case of the alterations to the window the builder had been remarkably remiss, not taking out the permit until lie had been repeatedly Spoken to about it. Jle repudiated the suggestion that this case was brought on account of personal prejudice. The defendant ;;'ve evidence that he

hail eiitni.-dt'd lln- whole work to a | builder. ami the latter told him lie had obtained the in" permit. lie was quite willing to pull down thy verandah if required, hut he did not tiiiuk the Council should treat him 'harshly, for there were other premised close by which were a disgrace to the town, and ho reckoned he was the only man in town whoso premises were properly fitted lor the lish business. The Magistrate said there was no doubt that the breach of the, by-laws had been committed. It was quite possible that defendant might have had an idea that the by-laws had been complied with, and for that reason, and because it seemed that the defendant would be

put. to some expense in re-constructing the portico, he would inflict only a light penalty. Defendant was fined 10s. Costs amounted to 'J-l Bs.