COUNCIL’S BY-LAWS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 183, 6 July 1937, Page 4

COUNCIL’S BY-LAWS

BREACHES ALLEGED. TWO PENALTIES INFLICTED. “This is not a matter for a mild penalty, and we want Air Hopwood to understand that these by-laws are not passed as a joke.”

This statement was made by Mr FI. R. Cooper, when appearing for the Palmerston North City Council in the Alagistrate’s Court, yesterday, when Arthur llopwood was charged with procuring Louise Francis Hicks, the licensee of Trenton House, a common lodging house in North Street, to deny Hislop Mackrell, the City Council building inspector, access to the premises. Defendant was also charged with permitting Trenton House to be used as a tenement without first securing permission in writing from the City Council. Mr T. F. Rolling appeared for defendant and entered pleas of guilty, three other charges of a similar nature to the second one being withdrawn, also a charge against Louise Hicks ot denying the building inspector access to the premises. Air Cooper said that defendant had received permission to convert the old Boys’ High School hostel to a common lodging house, but there was a great difference between that and a tenement house. Defendant had altered the building. entirely disregarding the conditions of the permit, and in a manner materially differing from the plans. When attention was drawn to the fact that he had “practically flouted the council” and gone on with the alterations, defendant gave an undertaking that when he returned to New Zealand from a trip on which he was now leaving all necessary stops would be taken to make Trenton House comply with the city by-laws. The council was prepared to accept that undertaking, but the matter bad caused it a great deal ol trouble. AViu-n All Alackrell went to make bis insneetiou. Airs Hicks gave no obstruction, but defendant arrived and instructed her not to allow the inspector into any more rooms. Two hours elapsed before defendant accepted the advice of the assistant town clerk, that ho was in error in refusing the inspector admission.

Air Rolling said he was “surprised at the almost venomous way” in which the case for tho City Council had been put. It was not nearly so serious as bad been suggested, and it was difficult to distinguish between the application of the respective by-laws relating to a common lodging house and a tenement. Counsel said the breach was merely a technical one, and the occupants of the rooms were really to blame for the non-compliance with the bylaws, though, of course, Air Hopwood was responsible. Facilities were provided for them to get all their meals on the premises. \TIe bouse being conducted according to the Continental system. Mr Hopwood had at first declined to allow the inspector to enter the rooms, as although be exercised general supervision lie regarded them as private, and believed himself entitled to protect those using them. If there was any obstruction, it was only of a technical nature. Some delay bad elapsed in endeabouring to interview tlie town clerk and Afayor before the assurance of the assistant town clerk that the inspector was entitled to enter the premises was accepted. Defendant was fined £o. with 10s costs, for non-compliance with the bylaw regarding lodging houses, and £2. with 10s costs, for refusing the building inspector access, the Alagistrate commenting that lie accepted the explanation in the latter circumstances.