UPPER HUTT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 196, 14 May 1920, Page 9

UPPER HUTT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Mr. E. Page, S.M., presided over tho nionthlv Bitting: of the Unncr Hutt Mattistrate's Court on Wednesday. Tho stock inspector (Mr. F. O. Webb) proceeded against sevoral farmers in the district. Edward Whitcman, who did riot appear, was lined £2 and costs 75. for exposing lioe-infested ". sheep for sale. Grenfield o.' Griffiths pleaded guilty., to' a charge of feeding Bwirie at Munga'roa on slaughtering .oflal without first boiling it. In defence he stated 'that a beast had, been hilled on a section which he had let to a man named Lockwood, while he -himself was away from i the place, and that tho pigs hnd-gained access to tho oflal without his knowledge: In view of thin fact a flue of £1 was imposed, .with costs 9s. 'As a sequel, Thomas Lockwood was proceeded ajainst for killing stock ot Mungaroa for human consumption without having a license to do so. The 'oflcuco waß admitted., defendant tolling tho inspector that ho knew ho was doing wrong, hut ho was "taking the ■ risk." This' risk cost him £5 and 9a. costs.' I/. J. Philips, farmer and carter, of Kaitoko, sued D. Wootton. wood merchant, for £9 'lis., balanco of account alleged to ho due. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £7 165.,' plus £1 15s. paid into Court, and costs £1 13s. Tho Upper Hutt Town Board proceeded against Francis Wilkio for having carried on alterations to a building in tho . Main Road, Upper Hutt, without submitting drawings and full written particulars of- same, and without permission from tho Upper Hutt Town Board. . Mr. Mazengarl), for the Town Board, said that tho Health Department had in'slrucled Wilkio to make certain repair's to an old building to make h sanitary. He had gono (urthor in making structural alterations, replacing parts of tho wooden buildini: with asbestos, and this ho maintained prolonged th« life of the liuilrtiug, which was of wood and in the brick area. Hi had been warned to take out the permit, but had ignored it. Defendant said ho asked for a permit from tho clork, who said it was unnecessary to havo ore, ai tho Health Department's notico was sufficient authority. A member of tho Building Committee had told him the same thing. He denied making structural alterations. Tho Bench was of opinion that 'ho defendant was doing work much in excess of what lias asked. Ho would bo fined £5 and costE £2 9s.