In addressing the Court for the defence, Mr. Macleod said his clients had never desired to oppose the Municipal Council in any way. 'They in fact erected these stalls as a temporary measure' to find out whether they would work. A building inspector saw the work on several occasions, and no complaint was lodged'; and it was not intil the stalls had been completed that defendants were called upon the Council.to pull them down. They then asked in what respect they had contravened any regulations or rules, and they were informed that they had contravened By-law 33 by undertaking building Nort "Burpinc Operations."
They could not believe anybody would hold that the erection of these partitions constituted "building operations," and they could not agree with the Council's view. Defendants had never intended these things to be permanent. The Council sat still, or at least its inspectors allowed defendants complete the work, and the Council having taken proceedings, naturally defendants stood on their rights. They held that, under any reasonable reading of the By-laws and Land Regulations, no offence had been committed. By-law 33 referred to "building operations," and it was a surprise to hear that the erection of a wooden partition on the ground floor of a garage was a "building operation," Counsel submitted that "building operations" meant operations connected with the erection of a building and not with partitioning it inside.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.