CITY COUNCIL LITIGATION.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5679, 30 November 1883, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL LITIGATION.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court yestoday, Mr Beetham presiding, Mr Weston made an application under the following circumstances : —Some time in August last there was an action brought in xhat Court, on behalf of the City Council, against a man named Angus, who, under a •u.\ °f tiie Corporation, was charged with having driven a cart from the coun■try through the city, the. said cart not being labelled with the name and residence of the owner. Mr Beetham, ha Worship the Mayor of Christchurch, •Messrs Ick and Westenra were on the Bench. Mr Garrick appeared for the City Council, but he was not sent for until some *«ne after the hearing began, and Mr Weston's attendance was protracted in The question at issue was She validity of the by-law, and the result was that it was declared invalid. Mr Weston applied for a professienal fee as «fi*inst the Council, and his Worship, after with the other members, .«* the Bench allowed a fee of Ss. ™™J afterwards Mr Weston applied to •ar Garrick for the payment of this sum, «»« a correspondence ensued—[Mr Weston several letters]—iu the course of _* cut that the fee had been •vowed with the acquiescence -of the juayor, who, in fact, had in a manner «u-ranteed the payment of the fee. The ended by Mr Garrick writing, on September 24th, to the effect

that the Mayor disclaimed any concurrenoe in the order eaid to have been m*-de,r and a»id that, he bad in no way committed the Council to the payment of the fe. And, as a finish, the Council refused to pay it, Mr Weston went on to say that his client waa perfectly willing to pay him his fee, but in the face of the order made by the Bench, be felt bound to bring the matter before the Court.

His Worship, having caused the record to be turned up, said that no order had been made, he had a perfect recollection of the circumstances, and what had passed was this —In answer to the application for costs, he had said that the prosecution was brought by the police. As they acted for the preservation of public order, the giving of costs against them would in the majority of cases be manifestly improper, and he did not feel called upon to do so then. But, certainly, the action might have been brought by the officers of the City Council. Under the circumstances he thought the City Council ought to pay the fee, and, after that expression of opinion he had no doubt they would do so. Before making the above remarks he had consulted the Mayor, who said he saw no objection to the payment of the fee by the Council, and probably his assent had since escaped his memory. Mr Weston said that without dwelling on the Mayor's repudiation he was impelled to protest against the tactics of the City Council in this and similar actions. Any person whom they defeated had generally to pay solicitors' fees and other costs without favor; but they arranged for themselves in a different manner. They stood free of expense whether they won or lost. By employing the polic** as their instruments they managed to escape scot free, without loss of any kind except, perhaps, their reputation for dealing. Why did not they come forward on the same footing as the public and take a fair chance ? He hoped the Bench would not lend itself to the carrying out of their peculiar method of proceeding. Mr Beetham having said that he was not inclined to say any more on the subject, the matter dropped.