NIGHT SOIL REMOVAL

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 266, 13 April 1917, Page 4

NIGHT SOIL REMOVAL

KARAKA'B PROTEST UPHELD

PUKEKOHE'S CONTRACTOR FINED.

As briefly mentioned in our last issue, the matter of the removal of nightsoil from Pukekohe to Paerata was ventilated before Mr. F. V. Frazer. S.M., at the Pukekohe Magistrate's Court, on Thursday of last week, when Mr. H. J. Hawkins, of Paerata, nightsoil contractor to the Pukekohe Botough Council, was prosecuted by the Karaka Road Board for carrying on an offensive trade, to wit nightsoil removal, in the Board's district* without the Board's consent. Mr. N. Chalmers appeared for the Road Board, and Mr. A. K. Duihie defended.

By agreement, Dr. Thomas John Hughes, district health officer, who attended on subpoena as a witness for the defence, first gave evidence. He deposed that he visited the depot on 23th June last with Messrs. Batty and Jamieson (members of the Board), and expressed the view that it was quite satisfactory and not likely to be a nuisance. On June 30, he wrote to that effect to the Karaka Road BoaTd. It was understood that the depot was to be opened to inspection at all times, and that the work was to be carried out to the satisfaction i.f his Department and "f the Road Board. On the same day he forwarded a written approval to Mr. Hawkins. There was a discussion at the inspection, and the members of the Board then present did not consider the depot would cause hny trouble. The chairman (Mr. Batty) wanted to know what dangers might arise, but after hearing his (the doctor's) views, expressed himself as satisfied. He (witness) had an inspection made by one of his officers on January sth last .and his officer reported that the work was then in progress. He (witness) made two other personal inspections, and was quite satisfied as to the way in which the work was being carried on. There was no evidence of a nuisance or of any detriment to public health. It was quite satisfactory from the health point of view. He had received a request from the Road Board to close the depot. He had explained that the consent of the local authority as well as that of his Department was required, and suggested that the Board should take any legal proceedings, as witness had no reason to do so. Cross-examined: The consent was dependent on the Board's concurrent consent. He had asked the Pukekohe Borough Council to find a depot in its own district, but the Mayor had replied that the Council was unable to find a site. He understood that the Railway Department objected to the depot owing to its proximity to the line and to a railway dwelling, but witness could not find any evidence of a nuisance.. The depot was several chains from the road, and would not cause any nuisance to people on the road. People living nearer than the road had not complained. Small pieces of paper might be seen sticking up, but the nightsoil was properly ploughed in. Re-examined, Dr. Hughes said that he had all through refused to take proceedings, as he was satisfied with the site, and with the method of carrying on the work. He gave his verbal consent on the spot on June 28, in the presence of Messrs. Batty and Jameson. Witness did not recollect them raising an objection on the ground that the site was in the Karaka Road District. There was nothing harmful in the pieces of paper being exposed. Addressing the Magistrate, Mr. Chalmers said he would have to admit that the depot was not a nuisance; but under section 85 the consent of the Road Board was required. The removal of nightsoil wa3 defined by the Act as an offensive trade. The chairman of the Board had merely expressed his personal view on June 28, that the depot was not likely to be a nuisance. The Board had refused permission, and had written to Mr. Hawkins, whose persistence in using the depot had led to the present proceedings.

Hedley Evans Glasson, clerk of the Karaka Road Board, next gave evidence. He produced the minute book of the Board, and an entry therein on June 17 last showed that a petition from the residents against the site had been referred to the District Health Officer. On July 8 the defendant had applied for the Board's consent, and the Board refused its consent, and the defendant was notified of its decision on July 29. On September 9 the Board decided to cive notice to defendant, threatening legal proceedings unless lie desisted, and a letter was written to that effect on September 18. The depot was still in existence, and had been used within the week. Cross-examined: The Board'.* decision was almost unanimous, only one vote being recorded in favour of the depot being established. Witness saw the depot on Tuesday last, and noticed paper sticking up. It had been ploughid within the week. He had not detected any unpleasant smell. Mr. Hawkins had attended the Board's meeting on February 10, but the matter was deferred to March 10, when his application for consent to another site was ignored, owing to his having defied the Board in the past. Joseph Batty, chairman of the Karaka Road Board, deposed that he remembered the visit of Dr. Hughes on June 28. He went as chairman of the Roard, but not as a deputation from the Board. So far as he could personally see. there was no objection to the site on the grounds of public health. Later, however, the ratepayers objected strongly, and the matter was thoroughly discussed by the Board, and the depot was disapproved of. Witness called a meeting of ratepayers for March 23, when the establishment of the depot was strongly objected to. Cross-examined: He personally had no objection to the site; but was acting in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers. Besides, Mr. Sehlaepfer, Messrs. McPherson and Kidd, members of the Board, were opposed to the site. The Board had written to the Borough Council on June 18, stating that objections were made to the site.

Mr. Chalmers then put in a statement of facts agreed on by counsel, and closed his case.

Mr. Duthie called in evidence, but contended that the trade of " removing nightsoil" meant taking it away from the houses of residents in a district, and not the act of bringing it into a district. The trade was thus established in the borough, and not in the Road District. The burying was only incidental to the removal of the. night* soil.

Mr. Chalmers, for the prosecution, referred to the definition of "removing," given in Murray's new English Dictionary, which had a secondary meaning of "putting away." The section must, he contended, be read in such a way as to express the popular meaning of the words. Ho ar.'ued that "removing" covered any part of the net of moving the nightsoil. The Board, he added, did not press for a severe penalty, but asked for the defendant tn desist from the work.

The Magistrate, in announcing his decision, pointed out that the Public Health Act required the consent to be obtained of the local authoritv as well as of the District. Health Officer. It was evident that the depot was not a danger to public health, hut Paerata people saw no reason why the people of Pukekohe should use the Pa. rata district for their (Pukekohe's) eonv.nience. He held that the trade of carrying on niu'htsoil removal included the whole of the work from its collection until its disposal. Tn fixini: the iKMinltv f" l>e paid it was due to the Hoard to h.< compensated for the expenses incurred. The defendant would be lined £5, and £3 6a 6d costs.