RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1187, 5 February 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq., R.M.) LAKCKNY. Thomas Griffen Green was charged, on remand, with having, at Moeraki, stolen one pair of blankets, one bed-rug, two pairs of drawers, two pairs of trousers, and two pairs of shears, all of about tho value of L 5, the property of William Fortune. The prisoner had been remanded to Hampden, where the principal evidence was given. His Worship sentenced prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labor. BREACHES OF THE BYE-LAWS. William Copland, for allowing four horses to wander at large, was ,fined, 16s ; William Cargie, one cow, with tether rope, 10a ; John Bulleid, one horse, 4s. Patrick Nihil was charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with having neglected to keep, the yard attached to tho Northern Hotel Stables'.in a clean state, contrary to a bye-law of the Corporation. Mr. Newton appeared for the defence. Evidence was given by the Inspector of Nuisances to the effect that there was a herp of manure on the premises to the extent' bf from 12 to 15 loads, near a boarding-house, in which ther6 were 17 boarders. On several, occasions he hiul given the defendant notice to abate the nuisance, but the nuisance still existed. Patrick Nihil was charged with having, on th 6 2§th January, committed a breach of the Corporation By-laws by keeping a stack of hay in a building situated within 20ft of the nearest building, the walls of the said buiiding not being either of stone or brick. Mr. Newton defended. Evidence was' giveii to the fcffect that the hay was stacked in an iron shed with an open front, built close to the saddle room, which forms part of the stables, and within 4ft of the Railway Boardinghouse. The- defendant had been requested to remove the hay, and ho then said that the loft-of the stables was full, and he had nowhere to put it. The hay had not yet been removed. Mr. Newton contended that both informations must be dismissed without calling upon the defendant. As to tho information for keeping an unclean yard, because there was no evidence to show that the manure in the yard had caused a uuisance, without which the oft'ence was I not complete. As to the information for unlawfully keeping a stack of hay, because it was not proved to have been a stack of hay. which was kept, but merely a loose heap, and because no seven days' notice had been given to remove it,- as required by' part 7 <>f the 13th schedule of tho Municipal Corporations Act, 1867, under which regulations purported to be made. As to both informations, because no evidence had been given—(l) To prova the existence of the Corporation, which was incorporated under a Provincial ordinance ; (2) To prove that the offences had been committed within the borough, and therefore within the jurisdiction to wliioh the bye-law and regulation, if in existence, would extend ; (3) To prove tho making and existence of the bye-law and regulation. With reference to the last point, Mr. Newton contended that no'evidencQ whatever had been tendered, whereas to prove bye-laws, and especially regulations! made under the . Act of 1867, evory necessary preliminary must be proved. Acts had subsequently been passed to simplify the process of proof, but many of these had been repealed and those in I force did not apply to the present case, He was astonished, that tho Corporation had not applied to bo brought under tho Act of 1876, instoad of petitioning the Governor merely to extend certain portions of that Act to tho Borough. His Worship, after referring to the points raised by Mv. Newton, said ha thought there was not sufficient evidenoa to support the charge of nuisance, and with reference to the stack of hay, it had not been shown that the notice required by the Act had been, given. Both casea would therefore be dismissed.