"HIDEOSITIES"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 137, 7 December 1926, Page 8

"HIDEOSITIES"

«, fr, »

ADVERTISEMENTS ON FENCES

APPLICATION REFUSED,

, (By Telegraph.) (Special to "The Evening Post,")

CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. According to the City Solicitor . tho City Council has control, over the advertisements displayed by a firm on a fence on its own property, even if tho advertisements are in connection with tho linn's own business. The solicitor is of tho opinion that such advertisements cannot be displayed without tho permission or licenßO of the council, and that the council may in its discretion refuse a license.

At last night's meeting.of the council the Bylaws Committee reported that an application had been refused and tho adoption of th.c report was .moved by Councillor C. -V. Agar, chairman of the committee.

Councillor C. T. Aschmnn did not' think the committee was doing the right thing in refusing the application. He thought that if the committee want-* ed to test the case it should adopt a policy of refusing all applications and inviting .1 test case on the question. Councillor Carv moved that the report l>e' referred back to the committee. Ho considered that if the report were adopted the council would bo guilty of gross partiality. The logical outcome of the City Solicitor's opinion was that the business firms would not be able to advertise their wares outside their promises or display show cards in their windows.

The Mayor oppressed the hope that the City Solicitor's Opinion would be found to be correct, because of all the "hideosities" in the city the advertisements on the fences were the worst.

Councillor Agar aaid- that the committee had decided to refuse the appli; cation" in order to establish a, policy^ A test case could then be brought to test the legality of the decision."

The report was adopted,