MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 63, 14 March 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before J. Stmons and J. Scxaxdehs, Esqs, J.J.P.] A Nuisance. Henry Clouston was charged by William Jennings, the Inspector of Nuisances, that he did " make default in complying with the requisition of the Inspector of Nuisances, requiring him to abate a nuisance near his cow yard in Hardy-street, by filling up a well or hole on the premises occupied by him adjoining the said cow yard." Mt Acton Adams, who appeared for the complainant, called William Jennings, who said: The nuisance complained of is a well or hole about nine feet deep and five feet wide, which has been dug near Mr Clouston's cow yard to contain the surface drain water, but the droppings of the cows also drain into it. Defendant was served with a notice by me on the 25th January. Something has been done to abate the nuisance, but there is still a good deal of silt at the bottom. The hole has only been cleaned out once since I have been Inspector. I saw it this morning, and found it about half full of offensive matter. I believe it to be injurious lo the health of those residing in the neighborhood. No doubt the hole is a great convenience to Mr Clouston, but he puts nothing onthe top to keep the smell from annoying his neighbors. I think he might dig another hole and put a lid on it. . . ..... Mr Clouston said that there certainly was a hole for carrying off the rain water, and without it the place would be flooded, as the yard was below the level of the road. He was quite willing to clean it out if considered necessary, but there was always a lot of water trickling through the gravel, which kept it clean, and there was no more smell arising from it than there was in the Court House at that moment. He denied that the droppings of the cows found their way into it, as they were always removed at once to Messrs Hooper and Dodson's yard. Mr Adams said that he had no desire to be unnecessarily hard upon the defendant, but in the interests of the City he must ask that an abatement of the nuisance be insisted upon. . . . Mr Clouston said that he would guarantee to clean the, hole out properly and place a lid upon it. The Inspector of Nuisances said that he did not wish to press the case, but several complaints had been made about this nuisance. The Town Clerk and City Councillors had visited the spot, and their instructions were that the hole should be filled up. The sides of it were, at present very foul, and the water could not drain off. He thought it would be better to fill up the present hole and dig a new one. Thp Bench ordered that the nuisance be abated within a week to the satisfaction of the Inspector, either by removing the silt or digging a fresh hole, the alternative being a penalty of 40s. Defendant to pay costs 7s 6d. Mr Adams asked for an order for the solicitor's fee, but the Bench declined to grant it on the ground that this was the first case of the kind. DEHT CASES. Daeis Sf Co. v. Townshend.— Action to recover £10 13s4dfrom defendaut, who is a tobacconist residing at New Plymouth. At the request of Mr Pitt, who appeared for the plaintiffs, the case was adjourned. Hooper v. .Be//.— Action to recover £8 for fruit sold to defendant in Wellington. Mr Buiiny appeared for the plaintiff. An affidavit by the defendant was put in to the | effect that he had not ordered the fruit, and did not owe plaintiff any money. After hearing some evidence, the Bench decided to nonsuit the plaintiff.