Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

VERANDA KNOCKED DOWN

Reinstatement Sought COUNCIL’S REFUSAL LEADS TO LITIGATION Whether local bodies have power to compel shopowners to erect suspended verandas in the place of existing post verandas or to compel the erection of only suspended verandas in future was an issue involved in an action heard before Sir. Justice Reed in the Wellington Supreme Court yesterday. Geoffrey Denzil Mallaby Goodwin and Francis Chichester, company directors, sought a writ of mandamus commanding tlie Lower Hutt Borough Council to issue a permit for the reinstatement of a shop veranda which was damaged by a motor-car and subsequently dismantled. Decision was reserved. Mr. J. S. Hanna appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. E. P. Bunny for defendants. Mr. Hanna said that the verandawas erected in 1924 by permit, and remained there until April, 1934, when a car knocked down some of the supports, Tendering dismantling necessary. The council refused to authorise its reerection, and insisted upon the erection of a suspended veranda. The building, however, would not stand a suspended veranda. The cost of strengthening the building would be about £270.

“We claim,” said Mr. Hanna, "that notwithstanding the bylaw, we are entitled as of right to have a permit to reinstate the old veranda.” He submitted that once a permit was granted the permission stood for all time, and that the council was not entitled to administer its by-laws unreasonably. His Honour (smilingly): Carrying your argument to its logical conclusion, the veranda could stop there and a new building be built behind it? Mr. Bunny contended that the bylaw was perfectly reasonable and that the principle had been adopted by local bodies from the North Cape to Bluff. The court had really no power to order the council to place any obstruction on roads, it being conceded, of course, that a veranda post must be an obstruction of a type. The council was only bound to permit as obstructions on its roads -what the statute compelled it to have, namely, telegraph posts and electric wire posts. His Honour said he would give his decision in writing.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19341130.2.114

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 57, 30 November 1934, Page 13

Word Count
345

VERANDA KNOCKED DOWN Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 57, 30 November 1934, Page 13

VERANDA KNOCKED DOWN Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 57, 30 November 1934, Page 13

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert