REFUSE IN A RIVER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 990, 11 May 1911, Page 3

REFUSE IN A RIVER.

TWO MILLERS FINED

Mr A. D. Thomson,'S.M., delivered judgment on Tuesday, at Palmerston, in the case in which E. P. Levicu was charged with having allowed Haxmill refuse to flow into the Oroua river (being a river in which trout exist), at Rangiotu, contrary to the regulation made under the Fisheries Act, 1908. In the course of his judgment the Magistrate said ; “ It has been proved that dbout January 24, 1911, a quantity, of material, consisting of the green vegetable matter beaten off the flax blades by the stripper at the defendant’s mill, and also pieces of fibre which escape the catcher,, were allowed to fall into a race and flow into the Oroua. These pieces of fibre amount to a considerable quantity in the course of a day, are sometimes short and sometimes long. In some mills they are caught on spikes, placed on wheels revolving in the race, and thus taken out of the race and deposited on the ground. In others, gratings are placed in the race, and the collection is periodically cleared away. At this mill neither of these plans, nor any other, was in use.” It might be, his Worship continued, that no flaxmill could be carried on without some refuse getting into a stream. He confessed that it seemed to him impossible to prevent some of the green vegetation matter which has been beaten off the blades so escaping* but practically the whole of what is called “ stripper tow ” could be caught, and is caught in some mills and dried and made marketable, and he had no doubt a' considerable quantity of the green vegetable matter could also be collected by proper appliances. It, therefore, the Magistrate said, he was satisfied that the defendant had done all that was reasonably possible to prevent the escape of this refuse into the stream, he would be prepared to act on the suggestion ot his Honour, Mr Justice Williams, in re Booth 10 G.R. 631. At the end of his judgment he said, ‘‘ If so small a quantity is placed that really no harm would ensue if it did go into the stream, the Magistrate has plenty of jurisdiction to dismiss the case as trivial, atlhough there might have been a technical breach.” In the present instance, however, the defendant had done nothing at all. Defendant was convicted and a minimum penalty of £2 and costs imposed. The Magistrate added that the judgment would apply to a similar charge against H. Jarvis, who was also fined £2 and costs. On two other informations—placing refuse near the banks of the Oroua stream —there was no evidence at all against the defendant Levien, and the case, therefore, was dismissed. As to Jarvis, however, there was the direct evidence of Mr McConnell that he saw a man tipping refuse over the bank, and Constable Gow said that when he was there he saw quantities of refuse on the bank, and down the side of the bank, and nothing to prevent it being carried into the river, and that this was above the mill, no where it could have been deposited by the race. On this charge also the defendant Jarvis was convicted and fined £2 and costs.