Not Allowed.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1126, 13 May 1911, Page 10

Not Allowed.

Mr. O'Shca retorted that lie was referring to Mr. Hislop's frequent interject ions. Ho desired to ask certain questions, and asked his Worship to take them down, and noto them if they were objected to. Ho submitted tho following question-:—Supposing that Wellington were an infected area, as Aueldaml is, wliat steps would you take with this building?

Tlio magistrate, refused to allow tho question. Continuing, witness stated that tho place was likely to generate disease. (Mr. Hislop objected to Jlr. O'Sliea putting; leading questions, but tho evideneo was allowed. Jfr. O'Shca remarking that Mr. Hislop evidently did not understand that leading questions could be Dut to au exDert.)

Regarding the question of repairs that would be required witness said that tho ground Hoar would have to be. taken up all over, and a facing of concrete, asphalt, or other impervious matter would have to bo placed over the foundation after first removing foul soil. Tho north wall would require a fresh foundation. On tho south wall and, in some of the centra walls of tlie building, tho brickwork would have to bo pulled down to make tho placo damp-proof. Witness indicated certain parts that required better lighting and ventilation while, at a rough estimate, GO or 70 per cent of decayed timber would have to bo removed. The ceiling of tho ground floor would have- to bo removed to permit of cleansing. Mr. Hislop submitted witness to a lengthy cross-examination, asking' for specific instances of tho presence of decay, dampness, foul soil, soakage, rats, fleas, and the borer. The witness indicated whero he had discovered all but fleas. Ho had caught no fleas, probably because ho had made no special attempt, but the building contained a lot of material that would breed fleas.

Carl Albert Schauer, inspector for tho Health Department, gave evidence and then Jlr. O'Shea intimated that one other witness which he had to call (Dr. Chesnoy) was at present away on public business.

Counsel then put in. the papers in connection with the last case, together with the letter signed by defendant's solicitor, agreeing to pull down in three years. Ho quoted from "Howoll on Evidence)" as authority for these being admitted. There was, ho contended, nothing in the suggestion that the action of the council was a stay of proceedings for three years. Such an_ action by a public, body would be against all tho principles of law and quito improner. The further hearincr was adjourned until 11 a.m. on Wednesday next.