THE CHINAMAN'S PROSECUTION

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 79, 12 July 1910, Page 8

THE CHINAMAN'S PROSECUTION

COUNCILLORS CRITICISE INSPECTOR'S ACTION. ■ At the Borough Council meeting last night, Inspector Tippins reported upon the facts leading up to the prosecution of a Chinaman, Joe Wan, who was fined £5 and costs for attempting to rescue a horse which the inspector was taking to the pound.

The Mayor said that the executive committee had first learned of the prosecution from the report in the Press. It had been decided to ask the inspector by whose authority he engaged the borough solicitor to conduct this prosecution. It appeared now that the inspector had engaged him on his own account. Cr. Gilbert said he believed that a previous resolution authorised the inspector to engage the borough solicitor when he deemed desirable. Cr. Wilson said that if that resolution existed it should be rescinded. It was a mistake to allow an under-officer of the Council to engage the borough solicitor for. every prosecution, and to mulct the Council in costs, which were never covered by the costs allowed by the (Court. He considered that no pVosecuItion should be taken without written authority from 'the engineer, and that I the borough solicitor should be engaged only on the authority of the Council or of the Mayor. Cr. Wilson remarked that .as yet only one side of the case had been heard. ' Cr. Watkins said that but for the heavy fine there would have been no hubbub. He was sorry for ,the Chinaman; but he didn't blame the inspector. Cr. Hooker: If there had been no prosecution, there would have been no fine.

Cr. Gilbert said that when they had a previous inspector there were continuous complaints and 'bickering, and the Council at length had to do away with Mr. Evetts because he was too easy. Now they had Inspector Tippins, who wouldn't allow even councillors to ride on footpaths. If there were going to be by-laws an<l an inspector, let the inspector' enforce the by-laws, and not revert to the old system of councillors authorising the withdrawal of prosecutions of tlneif friends ot people wio per•wially approached' them. As for the Chinaman's fiorse, it was - an' old offender. The matter of the fine was beyond the Council arid beyond its inspector:

Or. West remarked that he knew that rescuing cattle was a very serious offence in tlie eyes of the taw, and' the punishment was- very' severer i Cr. Wilson moved that in' future n» | information be lafd except on' the writ''ten authority of'tKe engineer, and that ithe borough solicitor'be engaged only ion the authority of the Mayor. He laid stress on the 'fact that the' inspector was directly under tlie engineer, and the engineer was'responsible for him to tne He 1 remarked that in some of the cases the letter and not the spirit of the by-law had been broken, and people had been fined' for cycling across the footpath to their'own gates. That was a hardship, and' it was also ridiculous.

Seconded -by Cr. Watkins and carried, after a further lengthy discussion. The borough engineer submitted an application from Inspector Tippins for a direction as to his action in regard to Mr. Alexander's cow, which had run amok in Devon-street during the month. Cr. Bellringer: There's an answer to all our previous discussion:. A' motion was proposed that no action be taken. The.Mayor said that the owner of the cow had already lost enough, including a very valuable horse. Cr. Gilbert: Yes, and Mr. Alexander's a. pretty big man to tackle, isn't he ? Cr. Browne: And he's not a Chinaman. Cr. Bellringer: You've summed up the position ll very tersely. No action to be taken.