Alleged Misuse Of Cement Brings Charge

Chronicle (Levin), 3 September 1949, Page 4

Alleged Misuse Of Cement Brings Charge

Submitting that there was no evidence thar defendant was an accessory tb the fact and that this should be established to gain a conviction, Mr. -J. Todd appealed for the .dismissal of a charge' ■against Albert Hinde in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, yesfcerday, preferred by. the Building Controller in respeet of the alleged misuse of cement. It was stated that defendant had exceeded the -limits of his permit by laying a concrete fl^or in a workshop on his property in Clark Street. For defendant. Mr. Todd entered a plea of not guilty, stating that the work had been done by a contractor without the instructions or knowledge of defendant. There was no evidence that his chent had done the work or supplied' the materials. "I. submit that the man' who 'did the work should have been called," said Mr. Todd. "I would go further than that and say that he should have been prosecuted also," remarked the magistrate, Mr. A. A. McLachlari, S.M. Disagreeing with the sub'mission by.counsel, Mr.- McLaclilan continued that if a person found that such a building had heen erected on his property, the. onus was on him to prove his innocence, otherwise people wou'd get contractors who ' were not fussy about what they said or did to co-operate with theirf. , "I rule that a . prima f acie case of using cement without a permit has •been made." Mr. J. Williams, acting for the Controller, said that the defendant had applied to the Levin Borough Council for a permit to erect the building, but a cement floor had not heen included in the pfermit. Action was to be taken against the contractor. Mr. M. D. Harvey, building inspector, said that the building was 18 ft. by 12 ft. and had a full concrete floor. Four bags of cement had beeii used. He had interviewed the contractor, who had stated that orders had been given him by defendant to put down the floor. Objection to the latter part oi the statement was made hy Mr. Todd, who said that the contractor had not been called to give a statement to the court. Called by Mr. Todd, Albert Hinde said that he had heen quoted £21 by the contractor for the laying of the foundations. Instructions had been given the contractor that no floor was to be put down as there was no permit for the work. Defendant said he was living in Wellington at the time and only came to Levin once a month. The floor had been put down in his absence. In answer to a question from the magistrate, defendant said that he had not agreed to the contract price' for i the. foundations, considering it to be too much. The price had not included the foundations and he had only agreed to pay the value of the work done. No definite price had heen agreed to. The magistrate: You seem to have left it all delightfully vague. Did you later order the demolition of the floor? Defendant: No. The magistrate: You were quite prepared to accept it and use it in dpfianee of the law? There .is an alternative provided in the regulations wherebv you could have hroken up the floor and kept on the right side of the law. Continuing, the magistrate said: "You ask us to believe that the contractor threw in the floor, even though it was not in the contract and there' was no guarantee that he would get his mohey for it and also run the risk of prosecution. Contractors are not that generous with cement." His impulse was to entqr a conviction against defendant, but he woul'd adjourn the case until the ' contractdr's version was heard. He accordingly granted an adjournment until October 7, FmedT £1 For Breaeh. Charged under the Building Emergency Regulations with the unlawful use of , cement, George Frederick Mann was convicted and fined £1. Appearing for defendant, Mr. N. M. Thomson entered a plea of guilty, but stated that there were unusual circumstances involved in the case. Defendant had purchased the cement in December, 1946, during a period when the control was lifted, said Mr. Thomson. It had heen purchased originaHy for the construction of a concrete fence. Defendant had started work on the fence, but had been approache'd by a cousin who was a building contractor with the request for a loan of cement. Arrangements were accordingly made for its replacement later. Later the restriction was reimposed and * the bags were returned singly over a long period. Defendant had then started using it for a path, but it was not until a period of 18 months had elapsed that it could be finished. For the controller, Mr. J. Williams stated that, the path was 50 ft. hy 9 ft., with a kerbjng: two inches high an*d four inches wide. Three to four bags of cement had heen used. The conviction and flne wgs entered hy the magistrate, who also allowed solicitors' . fees of £2 2s. Court costs were 10s.