POLICE COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4802, 26 January 1925, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1925.

(Before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.)

DEFAULTING TERRITORIAL.

At the Police Court, Paeroa, this morning, Bernard Rae was charged with failing to render the personal services required of him under the Defence Act, 1912. Mr E. W. Porritt appeared for defendant, and produced a medical certificate, and also one from the foreman of the Thames Valley Power Board accounting for defendant’s absence from four of the six parades. It was stated that Rae was a linesm.and and meter-reader for the Pcwer Board.

Constable McClinchy said that defendant had given a good deal of trouble to the Defence authorities, and had been inclined to shirk his obligations.

Sergt.-Major (W.0.) N. C. Busby gave evidence as to the number of parades defendant had failed to attend. No application had been made for exemption.

The Magistrate said he understood that partial exemption could be obtained by linesmen if application was made. The case would act as a warning ami defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs amounting to 7s. POLLUTION OF STREAM.

Hugh Johnston sawmiller, Maratoto, was charged under the Fisheries Act, 1908, with allowing sawdust from the Maratoto sawmill 1 to flow into the Miratoto Stream.

Constable McClinchy stated that defendant was manager of Odium’s sawmill, at Maratoto. David Leach, secretary’ of .the Ohinemuri Acclimatisation Society, stated that lie had accompanied Constable McClinchy to tlie mill and found that a large quantity of sawdust had bene allowed to find its way into the creek. The isawdust in the creek was disastrous for fish, and the society' had spent a fair sum of money stocking tlie creek during a period of over ten years. The defendant had since discontinued the practice. Witness said that defendant had been under the impression that because the creek was a sludge channel for mining lie thought it was no offence to allow sawdust to go in.

The Magistrate said it was evidently a case of ignorance, and as the practice had since been stopped defendant would be convicted and fined £l. with costs £1 2s.