OPPOSITION TO ADJOURNMENT

Southland Times, Issue 23826, 25 May 1939, Page 3

OPPOSITION TO ADJOURNMENT

HEARING OF CASE AGAINST BUILDER COUNCIL’S ATTITUDE CRITICIZED Pointed comment on the attitude of the Invercargill City Council in disagreeing to an adjournment of the hearing of a by-law case was made by Mr G. J. Reed in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr Reed, acting on behalf of Mr A. Smyth, of Mataura, said that the defendant was informed by the council that the hearing would be adjourned for a week. Yesterday morning, however, Mr Smyth was informed by Mr J. Robertson, solicitor for the City Council, that the plaintiff was going to proceed with the hearing that day. “If my request for an adjournment is not agreed to I will issue a writ of mandamus,” declared Mr Reed. “It is iniquitous for plaintiff to want to proceed.”

“I don’t like your methods of putting it before the Court,” said the Magistrate (Mr R. C. Abernethy) addressing Mr Reed. “It would have been better for you to have allowed the matter to be decided upon its merits. The Court cannot be threatened in that way.” Mr Reed hastened to explain that he was not saying anything against the Court. “It is unheard of for plaintiff not to accede to the adjournment,” he said. “I think the council is taking up a very harsh attitude. It is most unreasonable and most extraordinary.” Earlier in his explanation why he sought an adjournment of the hearing Mr Reed said that the council was proceeding against John Kennedy Stevenson, a builder, on charge of beginning the erection of a building without having first given the city engineer (Mr F. M. Corkill) notice of the time it was intended to start building, of beginning the erection of the building without the plans and specifications first having been certified, and of erecting a building not strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications certified by the engineer. The building concerned was valued at £2OOO. The defendant was before the council the previous night and was told that action in the matter would be adjourned for a week. The defendant communicated this information to his solicitor (Mr Smyth) and Mr Smyth communicated with Mr Robertson and suggested that the _ adjournment be extended to a fortnight, jge (Mr Smyth) then learned that' the.

plaintiff was going to proceed with the hearing. “Some stand has been taken against the buildings to be erected by this defendant,” said Mr Reed. “The action is being brought under one of the new by-laws which have been the subject of criticism by councillors.” Mr Corkill (who was seated at counsels’ table): No, nothing of the kind. Mr Robertson, for the council, said that he had been instructed to oppose any adjournment. The facts as stated by Mr Reed were incorrect. The new by-laws had nothing to do with the charges. The by-laws under which the complaints had been laid had been in operation since 1923. He explained to the Court that the defendant got a permit in January but since then had made alterations in the plans and the prosecution was that he had not complied with the by-laws. Work he wished to carry out was contrary to the building regulations. He refused to submit new plans when given the opportunity to do so. Since the summons had been issued no work had been done on the building. The Magistrate: What is your serious objection to the adjournment? Mr Robertson: The engineer will be absent from Invercargill for about a month and if the adjournment is granted a further adjournment will be needed. “On the statements made by Mr Reed I would be loath not to grant an adjournment,” said the Magistrate. The hearing was adjourned sine die. “If the defendant proceeds with work which is contrary to the regulations it may affect the penalty,” said the Magistrate. He made the remark as a warning to defendant. It was also agreed to adjourn the hearing of similar charges against Leslie James Breen, builder.