MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume II, Issue 383, 16 July 1877, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ THIS DAY. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M.) ALLEGED FOWL STEALING. Catherine Ramsay, charged with stealing two fowls, the property of Hugh M'Laren, was brougt up for judgment. His Worship dismissed tiie charge, remarking that there was nothing to connect the accused with the larceny. ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COUNTIES ACT. Henry Connell was charged on the information of James Martin, Clerk of the Waitaki County Council, with having on the 24th April, at Ardgowan, unlawfully sold and disposed of by auction certain goods without being licensed by the Waitaki County Council, or any officer or collector thereof, to act as an auctioneer within the said County, contrary to the provisions of '•' The Counties Act, 187G," and ''The Financial Arrangement Act, 1576," and contrary to the sta. •'--• sin such case made and provided. * • O'Meagher appeared for the plainty?, and Mr. Hislop for the defendant, who denied the charge.

In. opening the case, Mr. O'Meagher entered ;»t great length upon the ai-range-ments made last session with regard to the fees for licenses. He pointed out that the Sub-Collector of Customs had no right to issue such a license as that which had been granted to Mr. Connell. This gave him power to sell in any portion of the Provincial District of Otago. By the action of Parliament last session, the Counties became entitled to auctioneers' licenses. Were the Sub-Collector of Customs empowered to grant a license which would enable Mr. Connell to sell iu any part of the Provincial District, what would become of the fee .' To what County would such reTenue go ? He contended that the license which had been issued only enabled Mr. Connell to sell within the borough, and directly he went outside the boundaries of the town he was obliged to obtain a license from the County. If a license granted by the borough enabled an auctioneer to prosecute his calling within the boundaries of the county without paying a fee to the County Council, the latter body was deprived of a portion of its revenue. He admitted that it was very hard upon the auctioneer to compel him to take out two licenses, and said he thought it would be better for the County and borough to divide the license fee, but the municipality had refused to do this. The case had been brougat as a test case, with the view of having the matter

a ettled. Jame3 Martin was then called to prove certain matters, but Mr. Hislop said he did not think it necessary to enter into these matters, as the defendant admitted everything with the exception of the illegality of the sale, the license issued by the Sub-Collector of Customs being put in as evidence. Mr. Hislop then argued at length to show that there was no necessity for the defendant to take out a fresh license to enable him to sell witlun the county. He contended that the defendant had complied with the terms of the Licensed Auctioneers' Ordinance ; and that Ordinance had never been repealed. He pointed out that the Counties Act did not give the Counties any power to legislate with regard to auctionera ; and they had, therefore, no right to dictate as to who should have auctioneers' licenses or who should not. He contended that the defendant had paid the fee to the proper person. He quoted from the Counties Act to show tuat the fees payable for auctioneers' 1 licenses should be paid to the borough or county within which the auctioneer had his usual place of business, and said that fas Mr. Connell had his place of business within the borough, there was no necessity for his having a license from the county. „His Worship said that the mere fact or the defendant having obtained a license ~ from a properly constituted authority was sufficient to show that he had power to - pursue'h;& siJii.ug anywhere. The Counties Act specially gave precedence to an auctioneer's place of business over his place of residence. He would therefore dismiss the information. i