BUILDING BY-LAWS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 31, 6 February 1925, Page 8

BUILDING BY-LAWS.

AN ALLEGED BREACH. TALK OF PHOSECrnW. ( There wa; Fnme Bfronß comment a! ( lust nii-htV merlins of the Vii.-klnrnl I City i "iim-il cv.-r an all";." , .! livnrli i>l j tho' city huildine by-la we. Several niein- | i>er* that a prosecution xlionlrl l>c in.aiituted. bin liii? was neeniived cm the advji-c •■■l" ihe .-iry -o!i--iti.r. v-ho ovi jil.iino<l why !h<- i-oun.-il n-ouM prol);ii>ly tail if it took the matter tii court. I V.\r matter tir.M cam* Lefovc Mie ! council in .1 l-w.-r from the Am-:<land l-irc Board, ropardinp a fir.- in Alhort ■in lite opinion o< t.ho ..ipenntondent "i tli,- l.ri-nr].-, ;V |w; miM-suk-,! u-ouM no; l,a\"c l.'en so M-rimn Lilt frtr th« ;-H-:'.r\ ronctnu'tioii "f '•'»" buildiiiL-. in N/ui: '.l.iiiM' 4o of Hy-Uw No- 1. i' : "! " ,l! liven HfllH-red to. tiic nmin-iflii "• r< in for.-p the Miivreio 'i-and? and pi ,, hrinj!- ---' ixr~ stwut liic rollapfr of tin: nortliPrn i Ucp.irtiii}f nn th>. t.h". r-ity \aa',i\ (iiithrif. Bf.wi'in and CoDjytanys ■liilildin? in Ailwrt. .-treet was ci-ctr.! iinJi-r W..»: is known a« 'lif pior anJ |l.«am ron*tni.-tion, with .-nrtain ualU. j V>ii t «a.- not rsrrird out Ftriftly in a'jconlanrfi with thr plan? *n<l fpp.-ui.-a-i.in> ; f-iibniitirii. inas-much a? the : :ica: ions provided n-itii f-inr.'.i ptc<!ro<l-< to lv; lixofl in tiic .-omrct.- ham) •wiiifli Wβ? OHrrifd all round IV huildiinjr. but whioli wo.rr aotually omltn-l. The fit\ .-olidtor vrportcil th:H »»■-- ;,;,„, 17 of Ity law No. 1. prohibit.-" !anv ilopartnri? t dnviaiion I'oni ih«- ---■ pl.'ins anrl par!i.-tll»" approv'-'l -;f 'X I tho rnuii.il. nnd the omi-sion ■•! \n» Uteri rods in t'.iif W " ils " i'rea.-h "f Mhat ipcijon; that a. tlic lmiMinc -n-I . !l.i>cn finished for m>n> than month!" it |..,!i, no-.v too latr to take pro-eedinps ! tV, r the ori?inal offonen of .lrviatin? from !t.!ie plan-, nnd t.br f|UPstion mi whr-tfi«i !ilip ronuniied rvi.-t-iiw of t.hf biiildmc las. clrffletivply «.< a nilitinuing offenc". s>o ronderin? Vi\* ownyis I lot tho eontraoior liable M prosemtint) : at any time. The city solicitor pathered : !frorn'tb.' iTra- of tho city rngincr - * ! report, that lb<» drparturf fr"'m tor Iplans wa~ the ae.Unn of the contractor !without thp knowlpdgp. ami a-rainst the linierpft of thr owuer?, and it a prose- . leution -.rpre now to be undor'aken the . 'position wuld bo that if tin , eon'raetor ;Uvrre eiiarse,! with koepins Ihp huiMina >! in a itate contrary to the provision? 01 , Ith* liy-law? lie n-ouM reply that he ,iad lir.o- had pos-sff.-iion of t.'no biiiltiins; n.n«l , ieoiisequently had no power to alter it t :had lie been willingr to do fo. vh\\e. t.h' , owner*, if o.ba wl would fay that t.'wj 1 'had never authorise,] the departure froir ; the plan? vrbie'n was a? much of c t| fraud on them 35 on the counj-il, »nc I that, althnngh .'o.-tir>n 2n7 of Bylaw No |l qui»o rijrhtiy makes the owner respon ' Uihle for any breaches of the hr-la*. 11 ' eonnevtion vcit'.i bis buildins be c"il< s !not advi«e that, a pronwution in t«i: *|ea*p would be likply to Micwd. r ! Tnfler the eireum'tanpes, the ro.m.-i * Mwidfld that it Tmild he tiselefs to prof? , - ______ '- 1 .