The Courts.
MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALEXANDRA.
Honda* amo Tuesday, ICth and 17th May,
(Before ¥ J Burgess, Esq, 8.M.)
Police v George Martin; charge of furious riding in Tarbart-street, Alexandra, Fined 10s and costs 9s.
Inspector of Nuisances v X Sainsbury; oharge of riding a bicycle on a footpath,— Fined 6s and costs.
Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages vB Eaton; charge of failing to register the birth of a child within the prescribed time. —Fined 5s and costs. CLAIM MB WAUS.
Geo Robb v W Hendersen ; claim, £1 for wages. Mr Hutton appaared for plaintit, and Mr Bartholomew for defendant.
Plaintiff stated that he had acted for defendant as caretaker of the Enterprise dredge on four holidays, for which he olaimed wages at double rates in aecordance with the Arbitration Court award.
George M'Gregor, dredgemaster, said he had left Henderson (who was engineer) in charge of the dredge>bile he was absent during the holidays. Defendant bad only had authority to employ Bobb for one day. If defendant employed men beyond this he would expect him to pay them out of his own pocket.
J H Davidson, secretary of the Dredgemen's Union, gave evidence' regarding the rate of wages under the Arbitration Court award.
For the defence, defendant denied all liability. He acted as caretaker daring the holidays to oblige the dredgemaster, bat he told him he (defendant) would want to get off for a day or two, when the dredgemaster instructed him to employ Bobb. He was paid full wages, whether the dredge worked or not, but was not obliged to act as caretaker when the dredge was stepped After counsel had summed up, His Worship gave judgment for fil 10s '(with costs 15s) being for three days at the rate of 10s. His Worship ruled that the Arbitration Court's award did not apply to caretakers
OMJM »o|l DJUUSBB.
George Poulter v Henry Scbaumann; olala £IOO damages. Mr Hutton appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Barthelomew for dafondant
The statement of claim set forth that the damages were claimed for injuries sustained to plaintiff and his wife, owing to an alleged public nuisance caused by defendant, who had laid down a drain which discharged impure matter in front of plaintiffs house. The matter discharged accumulated and created a bad smell. Sickness had been caused thereby to plaintiffs 1 wife, who had to be sent away, and the property was dedeteriorated in value.
.For the plaintiff, Constable Dale said that he had seen a lot of offensively-smelling matter lying in front of Boulter's house. He characterised it as an intolerable nuisance. * .; • . .• -
Evidence was also given by W Carr, A Kennedy, L Anderson,' and J O Buchanan, each of whom stated that they had seen accumulations of soapy water in front of plaintiff's house, which had some from.defendant's drain pipe, and that an offensive odor arose therefrom. There was very little fall in that part of the street, and the water accumulated in a depression in the read I Dr Gregg gave evidence to the effect that he was called in to visit plaintiffs wife, who was suffering from acute "pharyngitis, <jf septi- «*re throat, Hi had! no doubt the disease was caused by emanations from the gutter in front of the house, He had detected a bad odor arising therefrom when visiting the house. He had. advised plaintiffs wife to go away for a change. Plaintiff, in his evidence, said he objected to the drain being pat b by defends** before it was completed. He afterwards com* plained to the Council, but ae action had been taken. A very bad smell orese from the accumulated matter coming from the drain pipe, and in cqneenucsoe hie wife had become ill. He had to send fee* away, and had been put to considerable annoyance, and also expense, in having to board his family oat. He considered his property had become depreciated in value, and he would not live in the bouse' while the nuisance remained. '
Mr Bartholomew opened las case for the defence, and called
Frank Young, town olerk, who Mid Poulter verbally oomplaintd to bin about December or January. Qa visited the drain, and, although ha law some soapy water, ha could not detect any offensive smell. The inspector of nuisanoes also Tiaited the drain, but did not report unfavorably a* to its condition- There were other pipes discharged into the gutters. There was no other way of disposing of waste water. It the byelaw was enforced, a deadlock would result. Geo Farqubarson said he lived next door to Poulter's. He had never detected any. thing of ensile about the drain referred to.
J Foohey, W Bowler, and Joseph Yeang gave evidence to the effectr that they often passed the drain, but never detected any onpleasant smell arising from. the. gutter. Jas Travis, inspector Df Nuisances, said he inspected the drain in December, but did not And very ranch wrong with it He did not send in any report to the Council about It. -It was not so bad as the again street was at present. Defendant, in bis evidence, denied plaintiffs state pent as to the conversation when the dram was laid,' He (defendant) said to plaintiff that he was only doing what other people did. The matter sent down, the drain pipe was bath-room and kitchen water, and only occasionally was soapy t water sent down. He had taken steps to lush the drain and gutter, bat the street was very fat It was a common'method Id the town of getting rid of waste water, 'and the gutter in question was no worse than any other in the Borough. He had tried the methodof getting rid of water by finking to the gravel, but this did not apt satisfactorily. Did not think the drain was responsible for Mrs Poulter's ill health &* <t
The hearing of the case occupied the greater part of two days, and after the evidence hadbeen heard, lcarsed counsel tommed up at considerable length, eeotisg various authorities in support of their contentions His Worship' said, as the question was one that affected the whole community, be would take time to consider the authorities quoted, and would deliver judgement next Court day '-•
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AHCOG19040519.2.19
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 422, 19 May 1904, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,032The Courts. Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 422, 19 May 1904, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.