MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2291, 5 August 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Pbidat, August 5. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.]

Dhunkbnnbss. —Wm. Warner was brought up charged with being drunk at five o’clock the day previous in the right-of-way behind the City Hotel, and with breaking a pane of glass at the back of those premises. Prisoner admitted the offences, but complained that before the glass was broken one of the servants of the hotel had thrown two buckets of water over him, and ho had been much irritated by that. He had been lying in the look-up in his wet clothes ever since. The Magistrate caused Oram, employed at the hotel, to be sent for, and questioned him as to the throwing of the water, but the witness said he knew nothing about that. His Worship—Ho would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, and deal leniently with him, but could not let him off altogether. He was fined 5s for being drunk, Is for breaking the glass, and ordered to pay its value 2s. Indubtbial School Children. —A case against John Hilbert for letting bis payments of 10s weekly towards the maintenance of his children at Burnham go in acrear, was adjourned till August 19th Bbeaoh of thb Public Health Act.— E. Hensley was charged with having neglected to abate a nuisance after having received notice to that effect from the inspector of nuisances. Mr Oowlishaw appeared for the Board, Mr Joyce for defendant. B, J, 8. Harman, chairman of the Board of Health, deposed that the attention of the Board had been called by a complaint from some inhabitants of Sydenham to the proceedings of defendant, who as contractor for removal of rubbish from houses in Christchurch, had for some time past been in the habit of depositing ashes and other house rubbish on a section in Sydenham, the property of Mr Langdown, thereby causing a great nuisance. The inspector was instructed to serve a notice for the discontinuance of the practice, but no notice was taken of it, and the present proceedings were taken to set at rest any doubts as to the powers of the Board, and to secure the prevention of the nuisance in future. The Board did not wish in the present case to exact more than the abatement of the nuisance, and payment of the coat incurred. Thomas Pearce stated,

that aa Inspector of Nuisances he had served notice on defendant for the abatement of the nuisance, which was a very offensive one. He saw three oart loads of very bad-smelling stuff put on the land by defendant’s men, after the notice had been been served. Jas. Nancarrow, fruiterer, deposed that he resided on the next section to that which was made the receptacle for all sorts of rubbish collected by defendant. The stench from the heaps was very bad, and was becoming unbearable. If the depositing was not discontinued ho would have to leave his house. Mrs Thompson, another neighbor, gave similar evidence. Mr Joyce, for the defendant, admitted that the refuse had been deposited as complained of, but it had been done with the consent of Mr Langdown, the owner of the section. It was clear, however, from the evidence, that there was a nuisance, and that it must be abated. He would undertake on the part of hie client to discontinue the practice complained of. Hia Worship said he ought to do something more. The offensive matter already on the ground ought to be covered over in such a complete manner as to extirpate the horrible smells which the neighbours said arose from it. Mr Joyce said he would see that that was done. His Worship said the case would be adjourned for a fortnight. If the nuisance had been perfectly deodorised to the satisfaction of the inspector, a nominal fine would bo inflicted, defendant to pay the coats of the present proceedings. If the nuisance was not then abated, defendant would be otherwise dealt with. Mr Oowlishaw applied for professional fee, but Mr Harman said the Board would waive that claim if the nuisance was properly abated. Civil Oasbb. —Judgment for plaintiffs by default were given in Canterbury College, £73 ; Percy v Davis, £1 8s ; Wagner v King, ' £lO 15s 6d ; Lloyd and Co. v Naylor, £l3 9s 9d ; and Mason, Struthers and Co. v Ander--1 son, £26 14s lid. Judgments were for plain- ' tiffs in Chomber v Phillis, £2 5s 6d ; and ! McLolland v Hawker, £l.