MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2721, 29 December 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, December 29. IBefore C. Whitefoord and J. Ollivier, Esqs., R.M.’s, and his Worship the Mayor of Christchurch, J.P.] Drunkenness. —Patrick Ryan, for being drunk, using obscene language, and damaging the cab which conveyed him to the lock-up, was fined £1 11s, and ordered to pay 12s 6d damages. Wm. Teague was fined 10s. A man and a woman for first ■offences were fined each ss. E. K. Stevens, ■who had been under medical treatment, was ordered to pay 10s 6d for her maintenance while in gaol. John Hawker, alias Williams, who suffered so much after his arrest from the effects of drink that he had to be sent to the Hospital, where be had to remain for some days, was now brought up, cautioned, fined ss, and discharged. The whole of the above to receive the ■usual terms of imprisonment in case of -default. Alleged Assault. —Mary Duggan, on the information of her husband, was -charged with assaulting him. She was remanded for seven days to undergo a medical examination as to her sanity. LYTTELTON. Friday, December 29. IBefore J. T. Rouse and J. W. Smith, Esqs., J .P.’s] Larceny.—R. Waggott. a ganger, emiployed in stowing tbe ship Marlborough, was charged with being on board that vessel at night without authority, and with stealing therefrom 10s worth of nails. Mr Nalder appeared for the accused. Evidence for the prosecution was given by the master of the ship. Captain Hercules Anderson, his chief officer, the night -watchman, and an apprentice. It was to the effect that after nine o clock at -P7 c/hft prisoner went on board and took: some nails out of an apprentice s berth, and was leaving with them when he was challenged by tbe captain, but he kept on up the wharf* and was brought back to the vessel by the chief officer, who stated that the prisoner had thrown the ■package into the water. Constable O Connor took Mm into custody, and testified prisoner was under the influence of drink. Mr Nalder .contended there was no evidence to show that what were thrown into the water were the nails said to be missing, and nothing connecting the accused with the taking of the lost nails. The Bench taking the surrounding circumstances into review,said there was probably no felonious intent, and dismissed the case.

It was understood that the proceedings were to be taken, as indicative cji? the desire of the City Council by ge»rtlo pressure, without however exccedir«galioir functions, to induce to connect their

premises with the ifiain sewer. Inspectors Leahy and Hobbs stated that the drain or flume described was now, and had been for a long time—many years — past, a nuisance. The residuum, always more or less present, frequently gave out odours that for some distance were plainly perceptible. There was no flow of flushing water kept up. An artesian overflow would probably keep the whole thing clean. Defendant did not deny the existence of the gutter, but stated that the solid matters found their way into a eatch sump, which was regularly, at short intervals, cleaned out. The flume itself was flushed and swept three times a day. There was no effluvium from it at any time. Moreover, since the notice received from the Inspector, such an overhaul of the drain had been made as to secure its proper working. Defendant called no witnesses, Mr. Garrick, addressimj the Bench, said he believed the evidence given by both inspectors outweighed that of the defendant, and he was therefore entitled to a conviction. The Board did not ask the infliction of any severe penalty ; they wanted to set this thing at rest. He was not now prepared to argue the question whether or not the Board had power to compel the connections of houses with the underground sewers, though elsewhere he most likely would have occasion to take that ground, but he did not wish to conceal the wish and hope of the Board to secure the co-opera-tion of the Bench in compelling the adoption of such an easy remedy for the abolition of many serious nuisances which still existed in the city. It was folly to suppose that the application of a few buckets of water in dilution of the house slops of such an establishment as the one alluded to—the slops being passed into the side channels—did anything more than spread out under and contaminate the atmosphere of a much larger area than would have been affected if the slops had been allowed to flow, impure and simple. After a long consultation the decision of the Bench was that, in their opinion, the Board had no power to compel connection with the sewer to be made ; at the same time premises must be kept clean. In the present case there was a nuisance, and it had not been abated since the notice given by the inspector. Defendant would be fined 10s, and be ordered to abate the nuisance in seven days. A case against Dr. Irving was next) called. He did not deny that there did sometimes arise a bad odour from the sidechannel in front of his premises, and that it was in consequence of the flow into it of household slops ; he, however, had done all he could to abolish the nuisance. He was building a new house, into which he would remove shortly, and there be had connected with the sewer. He thought the owner of the property was responsible. Mr Bray, the owner of the house, said as at first designed the drain was perfect ; there was an artesian well at its head which flushed it. The Drainage Board, however, hadjsinoe sunk numerous wells at a much lower level, and no doubt their action in this had caused the house well to cease flowing, and this caused the defect they now complained of. Mr Garrick withdrew the case against Dr. Irving, intimating the intention of the Board to proceed against Mr Bray. Thomas Gunnel was charged with not providing means for conveying house drainage into the side channel in Worcester street. Defendant pleaded that he had done so, and had also provided flushing power. The side channel itself was badly constructed.

Mr Garrick suggested that in this case an order for connection with the sewer should be made, then the defendant might appeal against the validity of the order and the matter be settled once for all; the Council would give all facilities. Mr Ollivier pointed out that making these connections universal meant, as he was informed, an expenditure of about j2120i000, and the course of the Board should be very cautious. Thoro was a difficulty initio that the drains belonged to the Drainage Board, and the City Council, though holding delegated powers as a Board of Health, could not touch the drains, or, rather, could not grant permission to break into them. Mr Garrick said he was prepared for this objection, and, if the case were adjourned for a fortnight, he would produce legal permission from the Drainage Board to connect with the sewer. By that time the defendant could make up his mind what to do if an order were made. If the Bench did not make the order it would be for the Board to take steps to remedy the defect by legislation. Mr Whitefoord agreed that the matter should be tested in a higher Court, and as the non-granting of an order could not be made the cause of an appeal by the Council, the course suggested by Mr Garrick seemed the only one to take. There were several other cases to be heard, and the defendants might club together so as to lighten the expense. Finally the adjournment was taken, the other cases being adjourned for three weeks.