Hastings S.M. Court.

Hastings Standard, Issue 468, 4 November 1897, Page 2

Hastings S.M. Court.

THURSDAY, NOV. 4TH

(Before Messrs Eitzßoy and Beilby, J's.P.) BREACHES OF BOROUGH EVE-LAWS. W. A. Beecroft was charged on the information of William Graham with having three vehicles unattested and unhorsed in Queen street, thereby obstructing the thoroughfare. V Mr Scanuell appeared for defendant. W. Graham deposed to seeing the vehicles standing in the thoroughfare. Cross-examined by Mr Scannell : He admitted being punished for breaking a bye-law himself some time ago. He instigated the'lettc r to the Standard which that paper refused as libelous, signed " Workman." He did not write it himself and could not say as to its contents. Could not give the time when he saw the obstruction, but was sure they were there after one o'clock. Richard Lean, laborer, deposed being in company with Graham when he saw the vehicles in Queen street. Graham said he would inform the police and would require him as a witness in the case against Mr Beecroft. Cross-examined by Mr Scannell: Was with Graham when he saw tho vehicles. Could not say the time. Told Graham if he were a witness he would have to get expenses and Graham replied he had nothing to do with that. Was not a particular friend of Graham's. Graham never promised his expenses. He did not remember an accident some four years ago. Mr Scannell, for the defence, laid it down that under the Municipal Act of 1886 the Court must be supplied with proof of the publication of a bye-law before a prosecution can be instituted under such bye-law. Proof of publication meant the production of the newspaper circulating in the borough containing an advertisement notifying the existence of the bye-law, and in this case there was no such proof, therefore the prosecution was fatally informal. Further, he contended that Graham was influenced by malice in taking the proceedings because Mr Beecroft did his duty in the Council by drawing attention to the fact that Graham was driving without a license, and finally in a case like this the master was not liable for the action of his servants. In October, 1893, a serious accident occurred in Mr Beecroft's yard owing to the yard being crowded with vehicles, and if Mr Beesroft's servants placed the vehicles outside the yard it would be to clear the space and prevent a recurrence of the accident, and the bye-law laid it down that such a course was permissable under the circumstances.

The Bench held that in prosecutions under the Byelaws it was the custom of the court not to require the evidence of publication Mr Scannell referred to, and they would be guided by this custom. The prosecutions was certainly malicious, and they would fine Mr Beecroffc Is and costs lis. E. Willis, for leaving his hackney coach in the street obstructing the thoroughfare, was dismissed with a caution. DISTURBANCE IN THE THEATRE. Thomas liorne and Lewis Steward (Sheath) charged with causing a disturbance at the Princess Theatre during the performance of Gardner Bros, were each fined £2 and costs, the Bench stating they were determined to co-operate with the police in stamping out this nuisance. REFUSIXG TO " MOVE ON." Robert Weaver, charged with standing on the si-reel to the obstruction of the traffic and refusing to move on when requested to do so by the Police, was dismissed with a caution.