TROUBLE OVER A BUILDING.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 112, 13 May 1911, Page 9

TROUBLE OVER A BUILDING.

PROSECUTION BY THE CORPORA- ■ TION. The case for the prosecution in tho suit James Doyle v. Hamilton Gilmer, now before Dr. M'Arthui-j S.M., was advanced a stage after The Post went to press yesterday. The plaintiff is the chief, municipal inspector, and ho is prosecuting defendant for his having "tailed to comply .witli an order to remove a condemned building within 30 days of notice which was eiven on 20th March. Mr. O'Shea, with him Mr. T. Neave, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. W. Hislop for defendant. The examination of Dr. Makgill, District, Health Officer, Auckland, was continued. Ho stated that he had looked over the building— 2os, Lambton-quay, and known as Warnocic and Adkin's— that morning. Since he saw it about four years ago considerable repairs had been effected, but these, in his opinion, did not go to tho root of the matter. The place was merely" a "whited sepulchre. Mr. O'Shea was proceeding to ask witness what he would do as a District Health Officer if Wellington was a plague-infected area, when Mr. Hislop objected. ■ The magistrate upheld th© objection. ' Mr. O'Shea (shortly) : Well, what | do you want ! — I wish I could get a chance. , The magistrate : What do you mean by not getting a chance? You are not very guarded in your language. You have had a chance for at least two days. Mr. O'Shea, in attempting to pursue his hypothetical queries, was again restrained. His Worship : What does it matter whether it is in Timbuctoo or anywhere else? There is no plague hero yet. Counsel (warmly) : Well, I will ask your Worship to take down the series of questions I propose to ask, and to note your refusal to admit this particular evidence. His Worship : Very well. The objection was noted. Some time later, when opposing counsel raised further objection to Mr. O'Shea's method of examination, the latter retorted that he questioned whether Mr. Hislop really understood the rules of evidence. Mr. Hislop (later, when the opportunity offered and, 'opposing counsel tendered some advice) : I have got on this far without my learned friend's help, and I presume that 1 will still be able to continue without assistance from such a .source. ' Meanwhile the witness (Dr. Makgill), in a lengthy cross-examination, detailed the comprehensive measures required to make the building sanitary. The place, he added, was rat-infested, and this in itself was a menace to those who might work in it, and even to those in adjoining buildings. Mr. C. A. Schauer, Health Department Inspector, also deposed. Mr. O'Shea put in the papers in connection with the previous case on the same subject. These included a letter signed by defendant, agreeing to dismantle within three years. He contended that the agreement to pull down was practically an admission that the premises were unfit for occupation. The defendant had lepudiated that compromise, and as a result the council's position was prejudiced. He contended this was an estoppel in pais. In reply. Mi. llislop mgued that the case rested upon the same principle as matters of contract. There was no admission as implied, ft was against the principk-a of law and 'the best interests of the community, and quite improper that' the council hang up this case tor three years if it was aware that the building was as it was averred. The agreement, he added, was not binding on either party, and could not be enforced. Mr. Neave considered that the agreement should come befoie the court at the 'time, and have been made an award by the court. Adjournment was made until Wednesday morning next.