View report page

72
With regard to the five summonses which were adjourned
sine die, in two instances this course was necessary in order to
ascertain whether steps taken to remedy dampness would prove
effective, and in one instance the adjournment was sought because
the owner proposed, in addition to carrying out work to abate the
nuisance forming the subject of the summons, to undertake extensive
reconstruction work. In the remaining two instances the summonses
related to notices requiring the provision of dustbins, and
were adjourned pending the result of an appeal by a defendant in a
previous case.
In this case the defendant had been fined £5 0s. 0d., with
£5 5s. 0d. costs, in respect of a summons for contravention of the
Ashpit Byelaws, and his Counsel, after the hearing, asked the
Magistrate to state a case on the point of where maintenance of a
dustbin includes supplying a new one. The Magistrate did so, and
the defendant appealed to the Quarter Sessions, but his appeal was
dismissed, with costs to the Council. The defendant again asked
for a case to be stated and intimated his intention of proceeding to
the High Court, but at the end of the year the appeal had not been
lodged. It has since been learned that the defendant has decided
to abandon his appeal and has paid the Council's costs.
It will be seen that two summonses were dismissed, but in
neither case were costs awarded against the Council. In one
instance the reason for dismissal was insufficient proof of ownership,
and a subsequent summons proved successful in that an abatement
order with costs was obtained. The second case related to a notice
served under the Ashpit Byelaws upon an agent and required the
provision of a dustbin. This summons was dismissed and a further
summons taken out against the owner of the premises resulted in the
imposition of a penalty and costs.
A further case of interest during the year related to an appeal
against a penalty for non-compliance with a Magistrate's Order.
The appeal to the Quarter Sessions was dismissed and the Magistrate's
decision confirmed, but when the Counsel appearing for the
Borough Council applied for costs the Chairman refused to make an
order as the Appellant had taken his appeal proceedings with the
benefit of a Legal Aid Certificate.
The advice of Counsel as to the possibility of appealing against
the refusal of the Court to award the Borough Council their costs of
the appeal was sought, but Counsel advised that the Court has a
discretionary power with regard to costs and, therefore, any such
appeal would be unsuccessful.
It was considered that the fact that the Borough Council
having successfully defended an appeal, should have to bear the