ELTHAM.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 July 1922, Page 6

ELTHAM.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. '(From Our Own Correspondent.) July 3. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held here to-day before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. ARREARS OF MAINTENANCE. Thomas Henry Bishell (Mr. Taylor) charged with being in arrears of maintenance in respect to his grandchild to the extent of £-7 17s Sd. Defendant said his daughter (the mother of the child) had been twice married, but he was not sure what her name now was; he thought it was Petersen. She was living in Petone, and he knew nothing whatever of her circumstances. Defendant suffered from neuritis and was indisposed for five or six months during the year. Defendant was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended for fourteen days. A variation was made in the maintenance order from 7s 6d to 6s per week. I BREACH OF THE PEACE Robert Henry George and Selwyn Peters were charged with causing a breach of the peace by using threatening behaviour in a public street. Constable Townsend said the two men raised an altercation and came to blows. It was not a very serious offence, and arose partly about a woman. Accused were each convicted and fined £2, with court costs 7s. CAR DRIVER DRUNK. William Free was charged with being drunk while in charge of a motor-car on a public foad. Accused, who did not appear and was represented by Mr. A. Stewart, put in a plea of guilty. j Constable Anderson said the 'accused i was so drunk that he could only control the car with difficulty, and it was fortunate that he was not before the court on a more serious charge. Free was fined £3, with court costs 7s. BY-LAW CASE 6. Antonio Peters was charged under the county by-laws With hawking goods for sale within the Eltham county without having a license so to do. H. E. Williams; county ranger, said he had previously warned Peters. Meeting him again on the road witness purchased Is worth of laces from him in the presence of a witness. Mr. Sheat, for the County Council, said this was the first case under the . by-law, but he believed the practice of hawking without licen' , es was fairly prevalent in the county. Accused was fined £l. with costs 7s.

Thomas Perry, Sydney F. Harris, and Albert G. Dixon, of Mangatoki, for whom Mr. Crump appeared, pleaded not guilty to charges under the county bylaws of drawing hedge clippings along the public road at Mangatoki, and further with placing and leaving th*” clippings on the road. Mr. Sheat, who appeared for the County Council, said that the defendants had been ordered, uhder the bylaws, to cut their hedges. Contracts were let. the hedges were cut, and the clippings were strewn about the road so as to leave little room for the traffic to pass. Evidence was given by M. E. Fitzgerald, county engineer. ,He said both sides of the road were littered with piles of clippings of boxthorn, leaving a clear roadway of only 9 feet. Mr. Crump’? defence was that the by-laws in question were ultra vires and unreasonable, and apparently intended to apply to city roads and streets, and not to country roads. He claimed that county councils were not qualified to make specific by-laws on matters which were covered by statute law. He contended that the defendants acted reasonably’ in carrying out the work required by them by the bylaws. The by-law prevented the drawing or trailing of a sleigh, trees or 4iedge>slippings on the public toad. The wording of the by-law implied absolute prohibition without qualification. A person was prohibited from drawing hedge clippings along the road even in a wheeled vehicle. The public right of all persons to use the road was interfered with by the existing by-law.

The first charge against Perry was dismissed, and on the second he was fined £1 with costs £1 Bs. The first charge against the other two defendants was dismissed, and on the second they were each convicted and discharged.

UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following undefended cases: Ada Nodder v. John McClymont, £l4 10s (costs £1 8s); Eltham County Council v. A. Hockey and another, £3O 7s 5d (costs £1 15s); same v. Hickey and McSweeney, £34 13s 5d (costs £5 2s 6d).