DEVONPORT’S FOWLS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 807, 30 October 1929, Page 11

DEVONPORT’S FOWLS

BY-LAW CHALLENGED 180 BIRDS OR 12? Lengthy and involved legal argument was a feature of the prosecution of T. M. Jay by the Devonport Borough Council at the Magistrate's Court this morning for keeping fowls without a licence. Mr. A. V. Fraer challenged the reasonableness and validity of the by-law under which defendant was charged. Mr. Prendergast appeared for liio borough council and said that Jay was keeping between 180 aud 200 fowls on October 1. whereas his licence was for 1” only. Percival Wallwork, sanitary inspector, said that defendant’s poultry yard was 50ft by 40ft. The run was 30ft from one house and 40ft from the house on the other side. Mr. Fraer asked the magistrate to inspect the property as the case was of great importance to about 000 ratepayers. Counsel was of the opinion that the by-law was uncertain. In the opinion of the magistrate nothing certain could be framed, as the number of poultry for which a licence was issued depended upon the size of the section on which they were to be kept and other circumstances which could be decided only by the council s discretion. The only certain by-law which could be framed would be if the council prohibited fowls altogether. Mr. Fraer: Some of tlie councillors would like to do that. It will probably be the next thing. Counsel said that defendant had been asked in February to show reason why his licence should not l»e cancelled as there was a complaint of nuisance by his next-door neighbour. Jay had attended the council meeting and stated liis case when complain* ant had been told that there was no nuisance under the existing by-law. Counsel considered that partiality had. been shown in the alteration of the by-law, which had been made purely to meet Jay’s case. Dr. H. Chesson, medical officer nC Health for North Auckland, said that he had inspected, the property at Oxford Terrace. Cheltenham, after complaints had been made by Jay’s neighbours. There was no obvious nuisance but it was witness’s opinion that the area was congested and residential, and that poultry-keeping should bo prohibited. Jay. an agent, of 26 Oxford Terrace, said that he had been six years keening fowls on the section mentioned. He was president of the Poultrykeepers’ Association in Devonport and took every care of his fowls and the run. He had received no complaint except through the council. Mr. Fraer produced statements signed by residents of Oxford Terrace that Jay’s fow'ls were not a. nuisance. A similar statement was produced signed by live doctors who attended patients in the neighbourhood. The magistrate considered that the question was whether tlie by-law was reasonable. Mr. Prendergast produced authorities to support his contention that the council had the power to regulate the control of poultry in the borough. Mr. Fraer said that he wished to be candid and that, if satisfaction was not received in the lower court, it was intended to take the case on to the Supreme Court. If defendant complied with the health regulations the council could have no right to limit the number of fowls that he kept. Reserving his decision to investigate the numerous authorities quoted. Mr. Cutten remarked that Mr. Fraer’s appeal was rather a question for the council to consider than the Bench.