saying that the builders here had no cause of complaint. – Coun. Howell replied that if it were not for the builders there would be no town at all. A contrary assertion might have been made, that it it were not for the town, the builders would have had no work at all, and would not have made such rapid fortunes as some of them did.
The Case at Court. For the better comprehension of the proceedings of which Mr. Howell complained, an abreviated(sic) report of the case at court is here appended. On the 5th of December there was a crowded court, in which the building interest had the major predominance in consequence of five gentlemen of that craft having been summonsed for obstructing Havelock road. Mr. Langham opened the case by stating that the informations had been laid for preventing obstructions and for the protection of foot-passengers who had for some time suffered great inconvenience. He would take Mr. Howell’s case first because he was the largest builder and also a member of the Town Council, who ought to have set an example to the others. The law required of a builder that before he proceeded to build, pull down or alter any premises he should erect a hoarding and lay down a foot-planking, protected by a hand-rail so that passers-by may not be thrust into the road-way or have their safety imperilled by passing vehicles. The present proceedings were taken under the Local Board Act of 1848, which had been incorporated with a later Act. In default of providing a hoarding &c. the penalty enacted was £5, and a further penalty of 40s. for each day, the hoarding, &c was not put up. The 81st section provided that all rubbish made or holes dug in the course of building, should be protected by a light at night and be enclosed at the expense of the builder. Mr. Howell’s case was taken under this section, and he (Mr. Langham) was instructed that Mr. Howell was building seven houses on the west side of the Havelock road, where the footpath was completely covered with bricks and mortar and other materials. This had been going for two or three months. The advocate then examined his witnesses, and Mr. Howell cross-examined them on a point which Mr. Langham contended had no bearing on the case. In his defence, Mr. Howell that although a wise one for such places as Cheapside might be unobserved with advantage in provincial towns and would be very expensive to builders to comply with, if carried out strictly to the letter. In the summonses against Thomas Vidler, George Thwaites, and Walter Longhurst, only portions of the pathway had been occupied, but they had not hoarded-in their materials. In the complaint against Robert Burchell, Mr. Langham said a nominal fine would be sufficient, as after being served with the notices he had removed the obstruction within the stipulated 48 hours. The Bench fined Mr. Burchell 1s. and costs, and each of the others £1 and costs.
