WE CREAM VENDING.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11243, 8 April 1902, Page 3

WE CREAM VENDING.

ACTION AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL.

In the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before Mr E. Beetbam, S.M., Solomon Shah took action against the Christchurch City Council to recover the sum of £10 paid by him to the Council as a fee for a stand in the city, to enable him to cany on business as a "vendor of ice-cream. Mr Joynt for the plaintiff, said the facts were few, but the principle was an important one. Plaintiff and another Indian had made application for licenses to be allowed to work ice-cream stalls in the city. Plaintiff, on the presumption that he was taking out a license for twelve months, paid £10, a permit being granted to Shah on September 16th, and in the January following 'he was stopped from further use of the stand he had Joeen granted. He would contend that Shah had a perfect right to vend ice-cream, and was not liable to pay anything under' the Act of 1900, as purveying a perishable, ' article of food, and as he had only been permitted to sell for a few weeks, it was sought to recover. Plaintiff, on oath, said in May last he and a friend named Abrahams made application for licenses to vend ice-cream, and were informed that on payment of £10 they could receive them., .Witness took out bis license in September, and in January was summoned for obstructing the road. Abrahams was similarly treated. Henry R. Smith, Town Clerk, said that Shah had been advised by witness not to take any license when he made application in September for a stand, as it would expire at the end of the year, and the permit would not be renewed. Shah then asked if the fee for the stand could not be reduced to £5. In reply to Mr Joynt, Mr Smith said he was not prepared to answer under what by-law the charge was made. Mr Fisher, who appeared for defendants, contended that the Council had power to grant the right to a stand in the streets over which it had control, and further, whether or not ifc was held that this power existed, a contract had been entered into with the Council,\md Shah could not now turn round and ask to get his money back. Mr Joynt said his contention was that there was no authority to issue any license at all except under the by-laws, and that, therefore, the plaintiff had to be dealt with as an applicant for a hawker's license. The Bench" remarked that apparently the Council had elaborated a form out of their own inner consciousness to meet the case, the by-laws not dealing with vendors of iceJrMter further argument his Worship Served judgment. Jβ