RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 190, 20 June 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before H.S. Wardell,Esq., E.M.]

.Feaihekston, June 10,1879. Constable Brunskill v. A. WrightDrunk and incapable. Pined 10s, or 24 hours' imprisonment, Constable Brunskill brought before his Worship .1 man named Robert Jories, charged with having stolen various articles Of clothing at Bulls some weeks ago, and asked for a remand until the arrival of

tho warrant from Bulls, Remanded to Wednesday next. '.Freeth v. T. Bainc—Neglecting to obey ■an order of the Court. Case adjourned to . Masterton for Thursday next. J. Chamberlain v. J. 6. Rockel—Dobt, £O3. Struck out, plaintiff bankrupt. &, Lancaster v. J. Bloummart—Debt, £l23s6d. Judgment: for £l3s 6d. . Same v. T. H. Hill—Debt, L 8 7s. Judgment.for amount and' Costs, Same v. J. Lyiftli—Dfibfc, LI 10s. Judgment for amount and costs. There were several other cases, which were adjourned. ' •. At tho sitting of the Licensing Court for Featherston.'and;.Lower ..Wairarapa Districts, the .applications of F. Faber, G. Lancaster, B. Wilson, W. ; Toogood, J,

Duff, E; H. Jjv Merson, -and J. Hodge , for- publicans' - licenses '-veto granted, there being no pppo'iitlou -offered. |

Greytown, June' 17, 1879. • [Before H, S. WarM, Esq;, KM.-,] ' • HoriTaliavrFabian: Bros,'-Breach of •the Impounding Act,. Withdrawn by consent. , ; V . • There were only a few other cases, which were of no public interest'. ' Carterton, June- 18,1879. ' [Before H. S. Wardell, Esq., R.M.] G. Coa v. H. Zabol.—Debt, £3 10s. Plaintiff nonsuited. G. Cameron v, John McGuire.—Judgment summons, £1) 83 Gd, Order made, R, Daviesv. J, Coiiolly.—Debt, £7 Gs. Judgment for amount and costs,

E. L, Wakelin v. F, Cheshan.—Debt £8 3s 9d.:' Judgment for amount. ■ E. Anderson v. J. Gizzard.—Debt,.£lC Judgment for amount and costs, H. H. Sprattv. A. Armstrong,—Debt £5 12s Gd. Adjourned to July 9th.

. Masterton, June 19,'"1879. [Before H. S. Wardell, Esq.] J. J. Freeth v. Thos. Kainie,—Breach ol the Destitute Persons Act/' On' paymenl of tho amount due, defendant was reprimanded find discharged. W. Perry v. T, Price,—Judgment summons, £9 (is Od, Order made. * H, Bontley v. W. Cullen. —Debt L2l4s Od. Judgment for L2 7s 8d anc costs.

H. Bentley v. Tlios. Joyce.—Debt, LGI3 iTd. Judgment for the amount and costs. Howies and Sellars v. W. Cullen—Debt, L2 7s Gd, Judgment for the amount and costs. : BREACH OF BY-MWS. G. W. S. Dalrymple was charged with commencing the erection'of a building in Queen-street, on part of town acre No. 4, without first of all submitting the plan and specification of the sarno to the Borough Council, in'accordance with its by-laws.

The Town Clerk proved that the plans had not'been submitted, and that notice had been given to the defendant. A plan was submitted by Messrs Dalrymple and Co; on tlio 10th July, 1878, aud approved, but that was of a building which had subsequently been burnt down prior to its completion. The building now in course of erection was not being built in accordance with the wishes of tho Borough Council.

In answer to the Court, the plan was not stamped or marked; could not identify it; believed the present plan was the samo as the oiie formerly passed by the Council.

James Russell called, deposed—That he was an architect residiug at Masterton, and a member of the Borough Council. He had by instructions'of defendant prepared a plan of a building, that building had never been completed, and was now in course of. erection on the original plan and specification. Tlio conoract prico was L 224. Witness, as architect, had given a certificate to the amount of Ll5O,

In answer to the Town Clerk, the spccification had been altered since it was.submitted to the Council by tlio addition ol some writing in red ink.

• In answer to tlio Court, there was nothing in the specificaton, as originally submitted, to-induce the Council to believe that the roof was to be of white pine shingles. The Court considered the question of roof was important, and that if the matter was left open in the interests of the public; lie should, order it to be of iron.

lii answer to defendant, there were two> sets of by-laws in existence in. •Masterton, tlie second set dealt with iron roofs, the original set, under which tlie action was brought, made no provision for them. In answer to the prosecutor witness said that he had not officially, as a member of the Building Committee, pointed out the building regulations to defendant, though he had done so privately,- The .roof at ijrst was to have been iron,

The Court at this juncture reading the specification found that they provided for both an iron roof and a shingle roof, the witness explaining tho inconsistency by stilting that a good deal was left to the discretion of tho architect.

On the understanding that an iron roof was affixed to the building, the prosecutor at the suggestion of the Court, withdrew the charge.