LETTING HALLS ON SUNDAYS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4706, 26 July 1893, Page 3

LETTING HALLS ON SUNDAYS.

Magistrate's Court ceedingsEden George was charged at the Resi dent Magistrate's Court this morning that, "Being the person having control of a certain building situate ir Tuam street, and known as the Tua__ street hall, and not having a license he did allow it to be used a. an assembly room, oa Sunday, June 11, contrary to Section 405 of '"The Municipal Corporations Act, 1886.' " He wae further charged with "Allowing it lo be i used for a public meeting on the earndate." Mr Fisher appeared to prosecute. Defendant, who conducted his own case, denied both charges. Mr Fisher stated that a license had been taken out for the hall for every day in the week with the exception of Sundays. He called Constable M'Gill, who deposed that he was instructed by the Sergeant-Major of Police t_> attend the Tuam street hall on Sunday, June 11. Witness went there about three o'clock in the afternoon, and saw about three hundred people in the body of the bail. The Eev E. Gilmour waß on the Biage, and witness thought a public lecture was being held. Witness a.ked Mr Gilmour if he had a permit to hold the meeting on the day in question, but he replied that he had not. F. C. Murray, Assistant Town Clerk, deposed that a license for the Tuam -treet Hall had been taken out by Mr J. T. Bell, agent for Mr Nathan. No other person had taken out a license in respect of the hall, which had recently been used on Sundays for holding publio meetings. To defendant : There was nothing inthe license issued to Mr Bell to say that it was only a six days' license. No permit had been issued by the authority of the City Council to persons holding Sunday meetings at other halls in the city. Mr Fisher called the defendant, wbo said he was les.ee of the Tuam Btreet hall, which he had sub-let to the Eev John Hosking on Sunday, June 11. Believed Mr Hosking wanted the hall for the purpose of holding a publio religious meeting on the Sunday in question. Shortly after witness took over the lease of tbe hall Mr Hosking engaged it for every Sunday for six months, Witness made a stipulation with him to the effect that no charge was to be made for admission. Witness thought Mr Hosking had ÜBed the hall every Sunday for religious meetings. This was the case for the prosecution. Defendant did not call any evidence, but made a statement to the Bench. He contended that he had been subjected to petty tyranny by some of the City Councillors, especially one member of the Counoil, whom he (defendant) believed was at the bottom of the present charge preferred against him. Previous to taking over the lease of the Tuam street Hall defendant knew that certain individuals had used it for the purpose of holding meetings on Sundays. Money had also been taken at the door, and he knew of one person who had charged la for admission to his lectures held in the hall some time ago. He was perfectly aware that taking money at tbe door on a Sunday was illegal, and he thought tbe persons who were guilty of the offence should have been prosecuted by the police. He had no idea of the conditions under which the hall was licensed, j but when he -took it he did so believing that it was a properly licensed { place. If a conviction was entered against him no church or unlicensed building in Chrietchurch had any more right to hold meetings on a Sunday than he had in the Tuam street hall. Defendant again asserted that some of the City Councillors had been doing all in their power to prevent him from using the hall. iir Beetham said that the question which the Bench had to deal with was whether defendant was liable to a penalty under the present information. He (Mr Beetham) thought defendant had better leave the j squabbles with the City Councillors alone, j and confine himself to facts relating to ! the case. j Defendant submitted that Mr Bell should have been served and not witness. The wording of the by-law produced was ' not authorised by the Council, and it had ]no authority to make such a rule. The I whole thing was ultra vires. The Town ! Clerk wanted witaeßs to ask him for a ! permit, when he had not been authorised to issue it. He further contended that under j eectionß4olto4os ofthe MunicipalCorporaj tions Act the City Council had no power ;to issue a license. He maintained that . aB long as he did not charge for admission j he could not be prohibited from holding j meetings on Sundays unlesß themeetings ' were disorderly. He again submitted that the by-law under which the license and been issued was ultra vires. I The Bench reserved its decision till after the hearing of another similar case. C. J. Wilkins was charged with having control of a building known bb tbe Oddfellowß' Hall and letting the same on a Sabbath for the purpose of holding a public meeting, i Mr Fisher appeared for the prosecution and Mr Caygill for the defendant. | F. C. Murray, examined by Mr Caygill, I deposed that there were no by-laws of the ! Municipal Council forbidding Sunday enj tert.inments. I Mr Fisher said the case waa not brought under the Corporation by-laws. i Witnesß, continuing, said the City Council bad passed a resolution granting licenses for six days in the week only. { Mr Caygill contended thatthe wrong party I bad been sued. The person to whom the building was let Bhould have been sued rather than the Trust .c. Failing that, the owner or occupier, to whom the license had been granted, should have been proceeded again&t. C. J. Wilkins was simply the agont, having control of the propeity for tho Tru-too. The exception mentioned in the license had no effect in this case. He • referred to sub-Section 2 of the Corporations Ad. Theroin it wao eai-l that a l__e_.se was to be granted for " a porio.."

of twelve months. Instaad of this, the .-license was granted for a portion of a year. It was true that the case had been brought under the Statute, and not under the bylaws, but still the prosecution went outside both. The Council had accepted the fee of £1 for the license— that meant for the whole period. If there was any equity about the matter the license could not be so distorted. The license was good— the exception only was bad. The license had not been suspended nor cancelled, and it would be held and construed as lasting over the whole period. Mr Fisher said that the exemption waa good according to the statute. The statuta simply said that the partiesmust apply to the Council for a license, and he contended that the Council had power to grant any kind of license it thought fit. It wa»not at liberty to grant an unconditional 'license. The term license implied that its •conditions must be left to the discretion of the Council. The license preoluded am_tfements on a Sunday, and if that license waa not good, then there was none existing at Mr Caygill said all the Council had to concern itself about was the safety of the building. It was not a body to take under its care the public morals and say what kind of meetingß were to be held. If the building was safe that was-. att it had to see about. Mr Beetham said the. case rested npon the question whether the Council had power to stop meetings on Sundays or not. He failed to ccc where its powerof- refusing - a license for a Sunday meeting came in. In reply to the Bench, Mr George said it waa a police offence,, under an old English Act, fc. charge for admission to a meeting on a Sunday. Mr Beetham eaid he was not satisfied that the resolution of the Council ref nsing licenses for Sunday meetings was valid. Mr George eaid he waß unaware of ita exktence, but would make further enquiries, and if possible forward it to their Worahips. The decision of the Bench was held oyer, Mr fiettham asking Mr George to let him have a copy of the resolution if it could be found.