HOUSEOWNER BARS INVESTIGATOR

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 152, 15 July 1937, Page 9

HOUSEOWNER BARS INVESTIGATOR

Prpd» A««nHnti'vn -

Housing Inspectors Refused Admission UPHELD BY COURT

(Bf Tel*"TrBr>h —

" AUCKLAND, Last Night, Beearase the authorities with which t the inspec'tora appointed under the Housing Survey Act were armed did not ' comply with the Act, and because proper notice had not been served, Mr. 0. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., in the Magis- : trate's Court dismissed a charge of ohstruction brought against a Ponsonby house owner. Costs were allowed against the City Council, which brought j the prosecution. . Defendamt, J. W. Payne, of Oliphant street, Ponsonby, for whom Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared, pleaded not guilty. He was charged that "on May 17, being the owner and occupier of a dwelling in Oliphant street, he obstructed Arthur David Bines and Douglas Vincent Campbell Kensell, persons duly anthorised under the Housing Survey Act, 1935, in execution of their powers of entry and examination under Section 5 (1) of the Act." Mr. R. H. Maekay, who conducted the prosecution, said that Ponsonby was one of the areas defined in the Housing Survey Act. On April 21 Herbert Vincent Hutton, an inspector, called personally and saw defendant, explaining his business to Payne. Hutton' wrote out one of the usual notices of; intention to inspect the house, where-! upon Payne became abusive and refused to accept it. Payne ordered Hutton off the premisesi and threatened him to such an extentj that Hutton left quickly. On April 28! two other inspectors called but Payne; was not at home. On May 17 two auth-j orised inspectors, Bines and Kensell,; visited Payne and explained their husi-j ness. Again Payne was abusive and| ordered them off the premises. When Hutfon produced his authority, in writing to enter the houses the Magistrate remarked that it was signed by the city engineer and not by the local authority concerned as prescribed by the Act. Mr. Mackay submitted that it was abundantly clear that the City Council could delegate power to its executive ofScers. Mr. Sullivan: I have got a more meritorious defence than that. "The matter is important in view of the wide powers of the Act," said Mr. Orr-Walker. Continuing, Hutton said that, when Payne refused to take the notice to >be; filled in by householders, witness tookit away with him. "Payne told me he did not want the City Council men coming round," said Hutton. "He used a foul word and also said it was just a job put up by the council to allow men to earn £6 per week." Mr. Sullivan: Payne had his hat on and was going out when he came to the door! — Yes. You never gave him notice and you did not call back the nest dayf — No; I never returned the next day. Why did you not throw t'he notice at his feet after telling him what it wast — We are instructed to delirer the' notice to people. Arthur David Bines deecribed his. visit to Payne 's house on May 28. Payne told him that it was his property and that he would not allow anyone to enter. This witness produced his authority, which was also signed by .the city engineer. "This Act, passed only in 1935, is one of the most far-reaching things in the city," said Mr. Sullivan. "It is also of great importance to all householders. It is very proper that notices should comply strictly with what is stated in the Act; otherwise it would be quite easy for- unauthorised persons to enter homes and cornmit crimes. There have been many burglaries and crimes of violence in Auckland of late. At the time of this alleged offence Payne was overwrought, having had trouble with his tenant; in fact an assault charge is pending in this Court. "I submit," counsel continued, "that the inspectors should have received competent advice as to how the notices should be served. The notice was not proper ly and legally drawn; also it said that Hutton would be b&ck the following day but he did not return." The Magistrate said it was most obvious the Housing Survey Act gave power to interfere with a man's home and for that reason it had to be construed strictly. The Act provided that 24 hours' notice of intention. to enter a house had to be given and had to be given by persons duly authorised by the local body or Minister. Proof of authority and proper notice were vital. "The authority, in my opinion, does not comply with the Acty" he added. "it is an authority signed by the city engineer. Until the proper delegation of authority is proved the authorities I have been shown to-day are no better or no worse than one given by a clerJt or typist to anyone in the council 's employ. The-wording of the notice is not a happy one; neither was the notice gfven suificient." Hutton could have returned the next day and entered the dwelling. If Payne had obstructed him, he would have eommitted an offence, but the man who said he would eall did not call again, so there was no obstruction. "This charge is not for obstructing Hutton but of obstructing two other inspectors so the charge niust fail on tliat ground, They had not given any notice to enter on May 17, and before they could have entered they must have been able to prove notice of intentiou to enter. It seeins to me there are several reasons why the case must fali to'tlie ground. Everything must be done strictly and in accordance with the Act." When the Magistrate dismissed the charge Mr. Sullivan asked for costs. ,, "This is a vgry serious matter and the

council should be more carefull," he 'said. "Tha City Council could have savecl the costs but lor tneir meauness in not conferring with excellent solicitors in their own office and the very eminent city solicilor. Mr. Stanton, and others in his office." Mr, Orr-Walker tliougkt the applieation for costs was a proper one and | awarded costs of £i ls against the [ council.