USE OF EXPLOSIVES

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 42, 19 February 1927, Page 7

USE OF EXPLOSIVES

CITY COUNCIL'S ATTITUDE

CHARGE AGAINST BUILDER

DISMISSED /

Because tho City Council, fearing that it might be liable for any mishaps, refuses to consider applications for permits to use explosives within the city area, Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, dismissed a charge against a builder of having used explosives without permission.

The defendant, Michael Gordon Templeton, for whom Mr. A. J. Mazengarb appeared, pleaded not guilty. "This is a matter of considerable interest to builders generally," said counsel. "The Act provides that blasting cannot be carried on in or near any public place unless permission is obtained from the municipal authorities. If this man were convicted, it would mean that building could not ,be carried on in the city. In this case, the council was asked for a permit, but neither granted nor refused it; rather, there was a tacit agreement to blasting op^ erations going on/ The practice was winked at, and the defendant carried on with the work with the knowledge of the district engineer until a resident in the vicinity, thinking that some damage might be done, complained. The council will not grant or consider any permits because it will not shoulder the responsibility, but it allows the builder to take his own risk. It is safe to say that no proceedings would have been taken had not the complaint been received. As a matter of fact, tho person who complained has since been satisfied that there was no danger." '■■'. ■ .

.. Mr. J. Loekie, Assistant-City Solicitor, said it seemed that the onus of .granting permits .was placed on the local authority under the Act, "but because there was no clause which absolved the municipality in the event Of au accident, the council had decided not to consider any applications.

The Magistrate: "How would the City Council be liable?"

JJr. Loekie: "I cannot say; but that has always been the practice.'' He knew no previous proceedings of a similar nature having been taken.

The Magistrate:-"I do not propose, to convict. It is clear that a technical breach has been committed; but tho defendant certainly applied for permission. From the view the council takes up it ;s evident that it does not want to consider applications, and if a technical breach has been committed it is one that I can waive.".

The charge was dismissed,