RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2349, 28 April 1892, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka —Tuesday, April 26, 1892. [Before Messrs C. A. Wray, R.M., and J. M. Tworaey, J.P.] BREACH OF THE COUNTY BY-LAWS. jk Michael Scannell was charged with on the 28th of March last taken a traction engine, combine, and galley over the Temuka bridge in violation of the county by-laws. Mr J. W. White a ape are d on behalf of the County Council and Mr J. G. Raymond for the defendant. F. W. Stubbs, sworn, produced the special order making the by-laws and a copy of the by-laws. The defendant’s engine had been registered, and it weighed 11 tons without water or coal, and about 12| tons with water and coal. To Mr Raymond : Produce the minute book. Held no meeting on November 11th. Notice of motion was given on November 7th, for the special meeting on November 25th for passing the resolution adopting the by-law regulating the passage of traction engines over county bridges. Issued to members notice of the special meeting. Special meeting on the 25th passed the resolution making the by-law. Advertised purport of the bylaw for four weeks. (Advertisement put in.) There were no resolutions passed ; or advertisements inserted except such as | are exhibited. A special meeting was held on January 6th to confirm the by-laws There was no resolution calling that meeting. (Put in the advertisement of the by-laws.) ToMrWhite: Hadwritteninstructions from the chairman to call the meeting on November 7th. Sent notices to the members of the meeting of the 25th of November, There were two meetings on the 25th of November—an annual and a special meeting. On the 13th of December sent notices to the members in re meeting on January 6th to confirm the by-laws. The meeting on the 6th of January was not called by resolution, but got instructions from the chairman to call it. James Hay, John Hay, Henrietta Mee (native), Ellen Roberts (native), and another Maori woman gave evidence to the effect that early on the morning of the 28th of March last they saw the dedriving a traction engine, combine, and galley over the Temuka bridge, Mr Scannell was driving, and there \\’QXQ a lot of men with him. Mr White called the defendant, but he declined to give evidence. Mr Raymond said he would produce UU evidence. Ho held there \yag po caso;

Ist, because there was no evidence to show that the engine which Mr Scanned took over the bridge weighed over six tons. There was evidence of a conversation between Mr Scanned and Mr Stubbs, but it was not shown that it was the same engine Mr Scanned propeded over the bridge. 2nd. The by-law was bad, because the special order had not been passed at a properly-convened meeting of the council in accordance with section 133 of the Counties Act (quoted), also sections 304 and 104 of the Counties Act. 3rd. It was bad because the subsequent meeting confirming the by-law order had not been properly convened. 4th. It was bad because the public notification was not sufficient. sth. The by-law was ultra vires because it imposed heavier penalties than was allowed by the Counties Act. Mr White asked for an adjournment, and, Mr Raymond offering no objection, the Court decided to hear the argument in the case in Timaru next Wednesday week. CIVIL CASES. James Harrison v. A. W. Wright— Claim £ls. Mr Salmond appeared for plaintiff and Mr Postlethwaite for defendant. Mr Postlethwaite objected to the case being heard, as there was no proof of service. Mr Salmond stated that the fact that the defendant and his solicitor were present was sufficient proof. Mr Postlethwaite said his client wanted to bring a cross-action against the plaintiff', and, as the summons had only been served on Saturday, there had not been sufficient time. The case was adjourned to next Court day, and the Court rose.