A QUESTION OF PROXIMITY
WOOLSTON v. CHRISTCHURCH. Mr R. Beetham, S.M., gave, judgment at the Magistrate's • Court yesterday ia the case of the Woolston Borough Council (Mr Johnston) v. the Christchurch City Council (Mr Fisher), a claim for £23 6s 6d. . This amount was alleged by the plaintiff to be due as a portion of the license foes collected by the defendant from carriers plying their trade in the borough of Woolston. In giving judgment, his Worship said that it was' contended by the plaintiff that the borough areas of Christchurch and Woolston were so nearly adjoining as to bring the claim within the provisfons of Section 406 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1900, which provided for the distribution of license fees between adjoining boroughs. The two areas did not adjoin. They were separated by a tongue of land, which was within the borough of Linwood. The two boroughs were adjacent, but not. adjoining. "Webster" said that things were adjoining when they met at some line or point of junction, and in this case it was not so. The claim could not, therefore, be sustained, and judgment must be given for the defendant with costs.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/LT19020930.2.10
Bibliographic details
Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12934, 30 September 1902, Page 2
Word Count
195A QUESTION OF PROXIMITY Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12934, 30 September 1902, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.