CITY COUNCIL REPORTS.

Evening Star, Issue 9153, 7 June 1893, Page 2

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS.

The following are summaries of the reports to be presented at to-night's meeting of the City Council: —

The Finance Committee report recommending that Mr T. S. Graham be appointed to audit the profit and loss accounts of the municipal, water, and gas de|>artmcnt* for the year ended March 31, 1893. Also that the Government audit fee for auditing the various accounts for the year be ]>assed for payment. Accounts have been passed for payment as under:—Municipal, £14219s 7d ; water, £66 7s 2d; gas, £3lO 7s lid. Total, 519 14 s Bd. Tho General Committee recommend that licenses to store kerosene be granted to the following applicantf*:—William Hammond, Dundas street, 40gal ; W. G. Neill, Princes street, 200 gal: Scott Bros., Manor place, 200 gal ; Mutual Agency Company, Vogcl street, 200 gal; Neill and Co., Limited, Crawford street, 200 gal; Mrs M'Nish, Rattray street, 400 gal; Irvine and Stevenson, George street, 200 gal ; Murdoch Bros., Hanover street, 40gal.

The Gas Committee recommend that the sum of £25 lie paid to Mr Thomas Young as an increase to his wages for the time he has been in charge of the gasworks. It is reported that the application of the North-east Valley Borough Council for alteration of five gas services from the present lamp posts to certain telegraph posts has been agreed to, provided the Borough Council pay all costs. The Works Committee recommend that the application of the Cavcrshain Borough Council for permission to straighten the footpath on the Town Belt leading from the Main South road to Phillip street, Caversham, be declined. With reference to the applications of Messrs T. J. Anderson and others to have the footpaths tarred and sanded, and the gutters tarred around the block bounded by Forth, Eden, and St. David streets, it is recommended that the footpaths only be top dressed. Mr G. How's application for permission to stand at the Triangle, or some other place, with a refreshment stall has been declined. As to the inquiry of the Hon. W* H. Reynolds as to whether, in the event of allotments in sections 41 to 44, block 5, Stafford, Melville, and Walker streets being sold, the purchasers would be permitted to build in wood, a reply has been sent by the Committee stating that the Council are unable to give a general and direct reply in the affirmative, but that any application for a building rnodificat on in respect to these sections would receive favorable consideration.

The Reserves Committee report recommending that the application of Captain Montgomery, of the High School Cadets, for permission to use portion of tho High School grounds as a Morris tube rifle range I>d declined, the Committee coniideriug it inadvisable that firearms should be discharged so near to the Town Belt and the Queen's Drive. It is recommended that the application of the Duuedin and Suburban Reserves Conservation Society to have the fence of the triangular oiece of ground at Hillside, between tho Main South road and the Kensington road, made dog proof with wire or wire netting, also to have the south end of the land fenced, so that the society may proceed with the planting of the ground, be declined, there being no funds available for this purpose. With rcferenco to the inquiry from the Duuedin Suburban' Reserves Conservation Society whether the society would be permitted to lay" out the Southern Market Reserve as a i garden, it is suggested that a reply be sent intimating that the Council are prepared *o favorably consider the proposition if the society will submit plan and details of the cost of laying out and subsequent maintenance. Tenders have been invited and arc receivable at this meeting for the usual grass-cutting and grazing rights over the Town Belt and various City reserves for the year commencing July 1 next.

Mr George who is superintending the boring operations at Eweburn, informs the ' Mount Ida Chronicle' that in the bed of sand met with after- boring 500 ft; there was more water than in those at 340 ft and 470 ft. The water did not rise as high, which he thinks goes to prove that the heds are not connected with each other,

> Robert M. Marks. £5, on ft promissory note.—DefonJant admitted giving thAjtM;m,<fm ft* tefr<tM fneam of paying.—H»t that his only business at present was to ascertain whether thetnq).ey Was owing,' had to be given irrespective of whether the person owing was wealthy or poor*: Jadgment, with 6s costs. J. F. Nixson v. James Calder(Gore).—Claim, v £♦, for board a»d lodging of 4efendsat and his wife at .the City Hotel. Mr Siriclair appeared for plAintitfj for whom judgment was given by default; withcdsts';,"' '■-_'" Caxton Printing Company v. I.&. Keogb, W. J. Coulter, and Walter Danveraj of Naseby, comedians. £8 17s. 6:1, on a promfssorjy note.—After hearing the evideaee of Clement White, His Worship gave judgment as prayed, by default, with costs. . , Benjamin Davis v. the Anderson Bay Ferry and Baths Company.—Claim, £l6los 6d, for damages to the yacht Ripple. Mr Calvert for plaintiff, Mr Fraser for the captain of the ferry steamer, and the Hon. J. Macgrogor for the company.—This case was resumed, Mr Fraser recalling plaintiff, who said that by running into a pile the yacht had at one time had a chip knocked odi«f her stem about (foe iratef-line. The stem was never iiijured at any other tihic: To Mr Calvert: The yacht measured 28ft ovei' all, and the bowsprit 6ft. The- Ripple's mooi'ings were 161ft-frani the dredge, and 170ftto the outside pile, —The Hon. Mr Macgregor aaid that he proposed to call Mr Sparrow to give evidence ae to tlie steamer's speed, but Mr Sparrow was out of town to-day, and he (Mr Macgregor) would ask that the evidence might be taken afterwards. — Mr Calvert consented to this course being adopted.—Captain Gray, mailed hy Mr Calvert,said that lie could stop the stcainer in about four times her own length. In travelling fifty yards he could bring his vessel 65ft off her previous course.—Tlie Hon. Mr Macgregor submitted that on, the evidence and the law in tjic case this accident was not caused by any negligence on the part of the master of the boat, but resulted from plaintiffs own negligence in leaving his yacht in the fairway, and not only was this so, but plaintiff had committed a breach of Harbor Board regulation No. 81, which provided that no vessel should lay iu such a position as to obstruct any approach to a wharf. Davis had been warned of the risk lie was running in leaving his vessel where she was. There being contributory negligence, the onus was shifted, and it rested upon Davis to show that it was not his own negligence, but tlie negligence of the master of the vessel, that caused the accident. Putting the case at its very worst agaiust the company, His Worship must apply the Admiralty rule that where both jiarties are in fault they divide the damage. - - Mr Fraser submitted tlwt Davis showed considerable negligence. Though cautioned that the yacht was dangerously close to the steamer's courso he had uot taken the precaution of shortening his cable, but allowed her to have a range of about 180 ft; and inasmuch as he had neglected to comply with the regulations he was not entitled to recover* Tlie yacht was by the ( regulations supposed to carry a light.—His Wor'shfp observedthat.th<?i;t was a distinction in the Harbor Board's regulations between "anchored" and "moored. 1 Vessels at anchor must carry lights; but it would be, tho height of absurdity to make a. regulation that all vessels were to include boats—should show lights.—Mr Fraser replied thai His Worship was evidently taking what might be called a common-sense view of the regulations. But surely if a vessel were placed in the way of passing vessels it was the duty of the person in charge of her to do something to ward off danger. His Worship bod a right to assume that if the yatV.t had carried a light this collision would not have happened.— His Worship remarked that the evidence led him to the opposito conclusion. —Mr Calvert, in reply, submitted that tlayacht was properly where she was", by permission of the authorities ; that it was the duty of a vessel under way to keep clear of n veseel at anchor, whether the stationary vessel was properly or improperly anchored ; that it had not been proved that it was customary here for vessels of the yacht's class to carry lights ; and that it had never been held that the infringement of a rule excused the other party from the exercise of care. Defendant knew where the Ripple was, and the least deviation from his course would have cleared her. It was questionable wlicther the authorities would have allowed the yacht to carry a light, seeing that a light there might be confusing to vessels coming up the chainel.—His Worship intimated that he would give judgment on Monday.

White and OarswclT v. Anderson Bay Ferry and Baths Company.—Claim, £5 8s 9d, balance of account for making approaches to .1 jetty. Mr Solomon for plaintiffs, and the Hon. J. Macgregor for the defendant company.—His Worship reserved judgment until Monday.

William White and David Carswell v. the Anderson Bay Ferry and Baths Company. Limited.—Claim, £5 8s 9d, balance due on contract for making approaches to the jetty at Anderson Bay in or about the month of November, 1892. The jilaint note further showed that the plaintiffs had removed 290m1s of material at 9d a vard, for which they claimed £lO 17s 6d, and that £5 8s 9d had licen paid, lcavingasimilar sum still due, which the plaintiff* uow claimed to recover.—Mr Solomon appeared for the plaintiffs and the Hon. Mr Macgrcgcr for the defendants.—Evidence having been given for the plaintiffs' case, Mr Maegregor opened for the defendants. He said the defence was that the material of which the roadway leading "p to the landing stage was formed had been taken out of the channel wider another contract, that the contractors were bound by that contract to shift the stuff back from the edge of the channel ,a certain number of yards, that this stuff of which the roadway was formed, instead of being simply shifted back, was used for forming the roadway, and that Mr Lee, vim had charge of the whole work, considered that the contractors were strictly not entitled to anything, but to deal with them liberally iLey were allowed half the price they claimed. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. . .