ALLEGED INTERFERENCE.

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

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE.

BOROUGH INSPECTOR IMPEACHES .A councillor; At the Borough Council meeting last night, Cr. Dockrill referred to a letter received by him from the town clerk, and referred to . in the report of the Works Committee. He said he had asked the town clerk to obtain from Mr. Tippins, the borough inspector, an explanation of why he had been so anxious to report a second-hand complaint to the executive committee, b.ut had not seen fit to report to them his (Cr.' Dockrill's) denial of the charge made by the inspector. He had told Mr. Tippins, personally, before the letter was written by the town clerk, that there was no truth in the complaint made to him bv Bagley that he (the speaker) had told Hooker that he need not allow Bagley to remove nightsoil from his premises. It was absurd on the face of it. No one 1 , not even the Mayor, or, for that matter, the Governor himself, had any right to stay the execution of a borough by-law, and' he was glad to see the executive committee had taken no notice of the complaint. -This reminded him of a previous occasion when.he had had a _ somewhat similar trouble with Mr. Tippins. On that occasion—he believed it was during his Mayoralty—Mr. Tippins, who was acting as dog-tax collector, complained that he had interfered with him in the execution of his duties by informing a lady that she need not pay the tax on a dog which she had had drowned. The inspector bad refused to accept his denial, and an enquiry was held. Then he demanded Court proceedings, so that evidence could be taken on oath to prove that he was right and the Mayor wrong. But before that stage was reached Mr. Tippins humbly apologised, and admitted that he had been wrongly informed. On this occasion Mr. Dockrill was determined to have a similar enquiry, to prove who was right, and the chances were that the inspector would have to make another humble apology. It was absolutely untrue to say that he had told anyone that they could bury their refuse in the central ward, unless it was many years ago when the practice was permitted by the by-laws. The Mayor remarked that Mr. Hooter was now complying with the by-law, but the inspector had been quite right in

enforcing a chansre from the cesspit sys-) tern where tlu> house was in such close I proximity to the infant school. At the I same time the executive had taken the! earliest opportunity of enabling Cr. DockriU to explain: and, if necessary, to i contradict, the report. Cr. Bellringer said that the innuendo in the inspector's report had been so strong that the executive refused to ac-' cept it, and it was immediately referred i to the councillor concerned. Cr. Clarke moved that the matter be! referred to the executive. I

Cr. Hooker objected. Cr. Clarke then moved that Cr. Dockrill's explanation be accepted, and that the matter be allowed to drop. Cr. Hooker: No.

Cr. Bellringer was glad that Cr. Dockrill was not allowing the matter to drop. Cr. Dockrill: The more it's investigated the cleaner I'll come out of it. The explanation was accepted, and the inspector will be asked for a further report, as suggested by Cr. Dockrill.