George William Maunder, 1875-1/6/1898. "how slender is the thread"

Police v. George Maunder, a charge of riding a bicycle on a footpath within the Borough of Hokitika. At the request of Mr Beare, defendant's solicitor, this case was adjourned till Friday next.  -West Coast Times, 11/5/1898.

The bicycle case was before Mr Macfarlane, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. George Maunder was charged on the information of Constable Albert Bennett with having ridden a bicycle on a footpath in the Borough of Hokitika. Mr Park appeared in support of the information and Mr Beare defended. The evidence in support of the information was taken, Mr Beare urged that the information should have been laid by the Borough Inspector; that there was no evidence the particular portion of the Borough on which defendant was riding was a footpath; and that the bye-laws of the Borough of Hokitika for the year 1867, under which the information was laid, were obsolete, the Municipal Corporations Act of 1876 having repealed the Act of 1867, under which the by-laws were made and the said by-laws had not been revived under the later Act. Mr Park replied that by the saving clause of 1876 the by-laws then existing were preserved and consequently still had the full force of law. — The Magistrate upheld Mr Beare's contention and dismissed the information.  -West Coast Times, 18/5/1898.

Mr George Maunder sustained a very severe accident last night. It appears he was riding a bicycle from Kanieri in company with Mr George Morrish and when within the Borough boundary was upset through meeting with some obstacle on the road. He was earned into the Belle Vue hotel in an unconscious state and had not recovered consciousness for some time afterwards. Dr Macandrew was sent for and was soon in attendance.  -West Coast Times, 31/5/1898.

It is with very deep regret we chronicle the death of Mr George Maunder, which took place yesterday morning. He never recovered consciousness after sustaining the bicycle accident on Monday night and it was very evident the brain had been severely injured. Singularly enough the external injuries were of a very trifling character, he was travelling at a comparatively high rate of speed and one of the wheels seems to have got into a small rut causing an almost sudden stoppage. This jerked the rider on to his head sustaining injuries of a most serious character to the brain tissue. An inquest was held in the Belle Vue hotel in the afternoon but nothing further was elicited. The deceased was much liked and respected throughout the district and his sudden death was a severe shock to all. Very great sympathy is felt for his parents, sisters and brother in their terrible bereavement.  -West Coast Times, 2/6/1898.

DEATH.

Maunder — On Wednesday, June 1, by bicycle accident, George William, second son of John and Margaret Maunder. Aged 22 years 10 months. Deeply regretted.  -West Coast Times, 3/6/1898.

The funeral of the late Mr George Maunder, which took place yesterday afternoon, was most numerously attended; fully 500 mourners, chiefly young men, following the remains to the Cemetery. The funeral service was performed by the Rev. W. Douglas, M.A., who delivered a thrilling address to those present, pointing out how slender is the thread that holds together human life. Very great sympathy is felt for deceased's parents who arc quite prostrated by the blow that has fallen upon them.   -West Coast Times, 6/6/1898.

The Committee of the Hokitika Cycling Club meet at 8 o'clock to-night to determine what action is to be taken with regard to the cycling appeal case, Police v. Maunder.  -West Coast Times, 11/7/1898.

SUPREME COURT OF WESTLAND.

Saturday, Sept 3. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Denniston.)

In Banco.

Bennett, Appellant v. Maunder, Respondant.

This was an appeal brought by Albert Bennett on behalf of the Hokitika Borough Council against a decision of Mr D. Macfarlane dismissing an information laid by the appellant against the respondant for a breach of the Borough by law regulating traffic in the public streets.

Mr Park appeared for the appellant. Mr Beare asked permission to appear and watch the case on behalf of the local Cycling Club. He had appeared for the respondent in the Court below, but the respondent had died since the original hearing.

His Honor said he would allow Mr Beare to appear contingent on his obtaining the Magistrate's leave to defend, or at any rate as amicus curiae.

Mr Beare doubted very much whether an appeal lay in the present instance. Suppose the appellant succeeded and the case was remitted to the Magistrate, how could the conviction be enforced? Mr Park said the appeal was brought only to test the validity of the by-law. His Honor finally ruled that as two very important points were raised, as to the validity of the by-law, and as to whether a bona fide claim of right to ride on the foot path under the circumstances did not oust the Magistrate's jurisdiction; he would hear the appeal without prejudice to the preliminary objection.

Mr Park then opened the case for the appellant. The facts of the case he said were all admitted and the only question before the Court was the validity of the by-law. He quoted Taylor v. Goodwin, 4Q.B.D. 228 and other cases go show that a bicycle was a carriage to come within the meaning of the by-law. He intended that it was only incumbent on him to put in a sealed copy of the bylaw and that it was a prima facie evidence of its due adoption (vide Sec. 418 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1886). All in force previous to the passing of that Act were saved and kept alive by the 5th sub section of the 23rd section of the same Act and he quoted Foley v Wallace, 15 N.Z.L.R. to shew that that meant "enforceable." The other important contention of the respondent was that a common informer could not lay the inromation but he would quote from Paley "On Convictions" page 73 to shew that any person aggrieved could lay the information. As to the objection that no appeal lay in the present case, he quoted Paley again, page 309, (Regina v Justices of Leicestershire, 14 Q.B.R.) where an Appeal has heard although the respondent is dead.

His Honor on looking up that case distinguished it from the present one. Mr Beare said he would rely on three points for affirming the Magistrate's decision. 1. The by-law was bad on its face, or even admitting it was well made it was unenforceable. 2. The appellant being a common informer was not competent to lay the information. 3. He would on the admitted facts set up a reasonable and bona fide claim of right. As to the 1st point, the by-law in question was made under Sec. 181 of the Act of 1867, which provides that certain provisions (draft by-laws) in the 13th schedule to the said Act may be adopted by by-law, such a by-law may be made by special order (vide Sec 189). This by-law purports to lave been made by "special order." Section 144 says that when anything is done by "special order" the resolution must be passed at one meeting of the Council and confirmed at a subsequent meeting held "not earlier than 4 weeks thereafter." But this by-law was passed on 30th October, 1868, and purports to have been confirmed on 27th November, 1868, that is one day too soon. The by-law, therefore, was never legally made and he quoted a case exactly in point, Wellington City Council v Staines, 10 N.Z L R., 329, to shew this was so. He also contended the by-law was ultra vires and unenforceable, as it imposed a penalty of £5 and damages of £10. As his learned friend had shewn subjection 5 of Section 23 of the 1886 Act had saved and kept alive all existing valid by-laws, such by-laws were made enforceable under the 1886 Act (see Foley v. Wallace supra). But the 415th section of the same act provides that a penalty of not more than £5 may be imposed for a breach of the by-laws. How then could this by-law be enforced which provides that not only a penalty of £5 but damages of £10 may be imposed? Even admitting for the sake of argument that the penalty and damages were separable, yet there was no power given in the section above quoted to impose damages, and penal clauses were always strictly construed. Secondly, the appellant laid the information as a common informer, which, he would submit, he was not competent to do. He quoted Bradlaugh v. Clarke, 8 App. Ca 364.

His Honor intimated this was the first time the point had been raised. It was the practice all over the colony for policemen to lay similar informations. He would, however, reserve the point if necessary.

Thirdly, Mr Beare submitted that on the facts as found by the Magistrate the respondent had a bona fide claim of right to use the path.

His Honor said this was a most important point and he would like to have it fully argued, however, the Magistrate had found the road was in a bad state of repair only, and not dangerous, and this a question that came before him fully. He would not feel justified in dismissing the appeal on that ground alone.

In support of his contention Mr Beare brought forward the common law right to act as the defendant had done quoting similar cases from Broom's Legal Maxims, page 8 forward.

In his reply Mr Park urged that it was only necessary for him to put in a sealed copy of the by-law as evidence of its due making, and that it was incumbent on the respondent to prove, by the Borough records, that it was illegally made.

In giving his decision His Honor said the by-law was admittedly made under section 181 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1887, which provides that the provisions in 13 the schedule may be adopted by the by-law. By-laws are to be made as set out out in section 189 by "special order." Section 144 of the same Act defines "special order." On its face the by-law was bad as it purports to have been made on the 30th October, 1868, and confirmed on the 27th November, 1868, that is one day too soon. He, therefore, on the authority of the Wellington City Council v. Stains, supra, had no option but to declare the by-law bad and dismiss the appeal.

Mr Beare asked for costs, Mr Park objected to costs being given as it was arranged that the Borough would not ask costs if successful.

Mr Beare said he would get the Magistrate's leave to defend.

His Honor thought this could be done, trot would reserve the question of costs.

CLARKE'S WORLD-FAMED BLOOD MIX CURE is a guaranteed cure for all Blood and skon Diseases. It is the most searching blood cleanser ever discovered, and it will free the system from all impurities from whatever cause arising. For Scrofula, Scurvy, Eczema, Bad Legs, Pimples and Sores of all kinds, its effects are marvellous. Thousands of wonderful cures have been effected by it. Sold everywhere, at 2s 9d per bottle, beware of worthless imitations.  -West Coast Times, 5/9/1898.

We understand that in connection with the recently cycling appeal case — Bennett v Maunder — Mr Justice Denniston has allowed the respondent £7 7s costs against the Borough Council.  -West Coast Times, 5/11/1898.

Hokitika Cemetery.