R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2812, 1 February 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CAHTERTON.-TUESDAY. (Before Mr S. Von Sturmer, R.M-.) Assault and Obscene Language, Constable R, Darby v J. Newstead, Three, indictments, viz., assaulting Jas, Lawrence in the Lyceum Hall, Carterton, using obscene language in the Bame place, and for using obscene language in the public street. ■For the first offence defendant was sentenced to one month's hard labor; for the second he was finedr 40s, in default fourteen days' imprisonment, sentences to run The third charge was dismissed. A Peculiar Case, E. Bezar, drill instructor, v. E. H. Buckeridge, in which, the plaintiff sought to have the defendant bouj£. over to keep the peace. This rather a peculiar case, By the evidence given it appears that sometime at the beginning of December last the plaintiff was in Carterton and had his dinner at the Marquis Hotel, and the waiter asked him for the same, when he tho plaintiff tendered Is 6d and the waiter told him he wanted another sixpence which the plaintiff refused to give, and said that he never gave more than Is 6d, Some little time after, while in the billiard room, the waiter again asked him for the sixpence and and the defendant, being in the bar, put his head in at the trap door and told the waiter to kick him (the plaintiff) out of the house, upon which some little altercation took place between tween plaintiff and defendant upon the strength of which plaintiff issued a summons against defendant for insul-" ting him and the matter came to the ears of Major Bunny who got the case withdrawn, and the plaintiff then atife} defendant to pay the seven cost of the summons which he declined to-pay, hence the present proceedings. After hearing a good deal of conflicting evidence, the case was dismissed, each party to pay their own costs, ;

MASTERTON,—WEDNESDAY, Drank, George Duffy, a respectably dressed young man, was charged with being drunk.—Fined 5s jor in dofault eight hours imprisonment. Alleged Breach of Borough Bye* Laws, Richard Brown, Town Clerk, v, Alfred William Renalh—This was a charge brought against the accused, under Section 240 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1886, with breaking up Queen Street for water works purposes without the authority of the Borough Council, Mr Pownall appeared for .the prosecution, and Mr Skipper watched (Ufa, proceedings on behalf of the defence.™' The charges against David Jackson and W. Langley for a similar offence were withdrawn, defendant taking tha whole of the responsibility. In opening the case Mr Pownall said the time of the Court would be saved if the defendant was prepared to admit the actual facts.

Mr Kenall: Certainly I admit them. Mr Pownall: Now that the defendant has admitted the facts, it will be for him to show what authority he had received for breakingup the streets. Mr Renall contended that it was for the Town Clerk to show under what authority the information against him had been laid. All prosecutions under the Municipal Corporations Act must be brought by the Borough Council itself, and submitted the Clerk had no legal authority to bring the matter into Court. It was for his learned friend to show by what authority the Clerk instituted proceedings. The offeMe was not an indictable one. He had : jft knowingly and wilfully perpetrated auy damage, What he had done was for the purpose of giving the town a much required stream of water, It Was of no personal interest to him, Every move he made whichMvas beneficial to the inhabitants, the Council resolutely refused to accept, At this stage, His Worship informed Mr Renall that these matters were outside the case now before the Court. What the Court had to consider was as to whether the information was bad or not,

Mr Renall: Yes; undoubtedly the information is bad. The Town Clerk is simply a private individual. The roads were vested in the Corporation, and the information must be authorised by them. The Town Clerk had no right to lay the information, and he again held that it was bad on the face of it, and that the action should My been taken by the Borough Couriwl, and not by Mr Brown.

MrPoivnall : Whilst admitting % streets were the property of- Cw\. failed,' to. see that fhs Towii Clerk, on behalf of the, burgess,es 4 lad no right to lay the present info?.

m'ation. Section 9 of the Muuicipal Corporation Act did not show that any such authority was required by the Town Clerk, If this were not tho case, whatever the Mayor not bo remedied, and if he clioralie could refuse to put any resolution brought forward by Councillors. Mr Renall took advantage of his official capacity to shield himself, The position of the case was this, the Town Clerk received the signatures of the Counoillors authorising him to bring the present action against the Mayor. It was uofc for him, as their solicitor, to sustain this, but lie relied on the question as to authority, Mr Renall: There was nothing in tho Act to prevent him doing what he had done. The only way they could rectify it, would be to send the Act back to the Legislature, and get it put right. The contention of Mr Pownall that tho Town Clerk could prosecute was misleading. Tho Act never intended to give a Town Clerk such power. If this was maintained, and for all the SI the Council would be, they may rell sell their morocco, and pay off r-overdraft at once.

Mr Pownall: The Mayor is in the same position as the Town Clerk. The difficulty in the Council was that they couldnot get the resolution carried ovipo His Worship refusing to put theTesolution, Mr Renall: That is easily remedied, Mr Pownall, by taking the legal machinery back to the shop, and getting it recast. (Loud laughter.) Mr Pownall: If there is any defect, it is in the. wording of the Municipal Act, His Worship, in giving judgment, said the Act was very conclusive, and, according to its reading, it was never intended that the Town Clerk should have power to take proceedings without the consent of the Council. Unless the Clerkcould show that he was authorised by the Corporative body, he would have to dismiss the information without prejudice, It was quite evident the Act did not meet the requirements of the Council in the present instance, and the only way to do so, would be to get an injunction from the Supreme Court, The information before the Court was bad, and he jAult' dismiss the case. 0 Further Charges, Mr A. W. .Renall was further charged at the instanco of two burgesses, Mr Samuel E, Gapper, and Mr George Heron, with having illegally dug up and removed the soil in Queenstreet without receiving such authority from the Borough Council, Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Pownall conducted the prosecution, and Mr Skipper watched the case on behalf of defendant. By the permission of the defendant tho two cases wero heard conjointly, tho information for the most part being a repetition of the previous charge, brought against Mr Renall by the Town Clerk. Mr Renall having admitted the facts of the case, Mr Pownall called on him for his authority, Mi' Eenall: I submit as in the previous case the information is bad. If plaintiffs had suffered private injury as indiAkials, he might be prepared to admWshey were justified in bringing the present action against him, •jjiut they had no such right, as the property was vested in the Council, and tney had suffered no damage or inconvenience. The Borough Council represented them, and they could not, therefore bring this matter into Court. Mr Pownall contended that every burgess had a right, when he saw the property of the Council being injured to lay an information, and quoted the Municipal Act in support of his statement. Mr Renall difiered with Mr Pownall as to the meaning of the Act. He said if that gentleman's explanation held good almost every wrong step the Boroagh Council took, the burgesses would be held responsible. "His Worship: Not against the Council for laying the information, but against you as a private individual. Replying to Mr Renall, Mr PownaH said there was no necessity to stipulate the amount of damage sus-

lay an information against defendant it he saw him doing an injury, His vVorship: Do you hold that the Reformation is bad Mr Renall? Renall; Ye 3, His Worship: Then that is all that is required. Tho Court in dismissing the case held that the information was bad, and not in accordance with the Municipal Act, His Worship allowed 12s costs to the defendant for the payment of-Langley and Jackson's expenses. The Court then adjourned,