A PUBLICAN'S BACKYARD

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 42, 11 August 1911, Page 3

A PUBLICAN'S BACKYARD

MAGISTRATE'S COURT PROCEEDINGS. SOME .SHARP PASSAGES. In the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth yesterday William George Emeny, licensee of the White Hart Hotel, pleaded not guilty to three charges arising out of the condition of portion of his premises. The first information was laid under the Police Offences Act, and charged him with that on August 4 he did neglect to clean a yard by which a nuisance was caused, to wit, an offensive smell.' Two informations, of a similar purport, were laid under the ilxtrough by-laws, and all the iufonitations were heard at the same time. Mr. J. H. Quilliam, borough solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. I'. 11. Weston appeared for the defence.

Mr. Quilliam, in opening, said that in consequence of complaints received, the inspector visited the hotel premises, and on entering this backyard a revolting sight met his gaze. There were heaps of rotten meat ami fish, and the place was literally strewed with similar refuse, and a quantity of excreta. The condition of the place was pestilential, so bad that the inspector and the constable who accompanied him on a subsequent visit were glad to leave hurriedly: so bad that men working on a roof near by were hardly able to stand the smell. The offence was aggravated by the fact that defendant was a hotelkeeper, who was keeping a place of public< entertainment. The first witness called was

- Benjamin Tippins, the borough inspector, who said that on August 4, in consequence of complaints received he visited the premises occupied by Miss Simpson. The first thing that he noticed was a very bad smell, which he soon found' was coming from the yard on the other side of the fence. He looked through the palings and saw heaps of rotting meat in the White Hart Hotel vanl. lie then went round into the yard, I and found a state of affairs that he I described as • something disgusting." There were five heaps of rotting meat and seven of foetal matter near the fence. Miss Simpson's cottage was about 42 inches from the dividing fence, and this stuff was close to the fence. I lie was unable to find Emeny. He took one of the hotel employees to the place, j and told him lie should be ashamed to have a yard in such a place. He also took the hotel cook to inspect it. He took Constable Nolan there, too, on Cue same afternoon —he made four trips that day—and the yard was in the same state. He could not see the licensee. •Next morning at !) o'clock it was still the same, but later in the day he found the refuse partly ,bu.t insufficiently covered with earth.- Ori Monday and'on Tuesday it was in this state, but on Wednesday it was satisfactorily cleaned I "P-

To Mr. Weston: This was the yard used by the,lio.tol, although It might;b& called the back yard of the cottage. One box of meat was pitched from here into

1 the yard of the hotel on Saturday. . On] i Saturday lie'had no fault to find with the hotel yard itself. ' ] Mr. Weston: I shall ask you, your Worship to inspect the premises afterwards. Mr. Quilliam: I'm glad his Worship won't be asked to see the yard in the state in which it was on Saturday. Witness continued: The chef q.nd the porter went over the yard with him. He told the chef that this was disgusting. It was not true that his only complaint then was'that the fowl house should lib hosed down. He served the notice ori defendant at ten o'clock on Saturday | morning, mid saw Mr. Quilliam on the ! same-day; after 'having interviewed the town clerk on the matter and received' instructions to prosecute. The only complaint made previously was that the fOwlhoiisC' must be kept in a cleaner condition tharr it was being kept in. He probably mentioned to 'Mr. EiVicny that tl|e .liifd-no business to be . there,. In the circumstances lie did not consider he -had been in any undue haste in, laying this information. There was , no animosity-.between, him and the defendant, s ,

Constable Nolan gftve-'evidenee that on .- .Ij'ridajf.. 4'lgust'4,. during the afternoon, . in, company .with- the inspector, he yisited '.- th 4 Whitejlart Hotel-yard. He sa\i' it i hf'iip of .rptten moat.Under a' heri fiiid othcij heaps-of rotting moat about tbij yard.. There. Wiere-five in ail, and about -soveir,heaps of foetal matter. ' fee ,Jij\d.ne)k;er r se4n,.il ! yard'lik'6 it. It \vafe ..very, vgry ,bad,; 'He didn't stay, there' ,Joi)g,#s tbe-^meU'was'very offensive. ■ ■ To Mr..|Westmv: > The heaps were com- ,. .posed .of scmpji DiVc'ookeS meat and.fish, : leavings from thi -l(,itc)ien : -, Much of the; " |-()ttini' meat wp fqneedivid- .. 'ing tlie , premises, 'from-, th'e-.neighbor's' place. - . ii r, v To tlie,Bench; Thprc-.w-ould be about a' .couple of .-bucketfuls,-in,;each of'the . heaps of meat..* .. -■ . '■ V. 1

William, lirinkwater, a carpenter, doposed that -frir .about a fortnight before August 4 In- was working at Miss son's, next door-'to-this yard. Dunn</ the \vho|li' time- a very had smell aVoft; from the yard in question, and he coliW, see heaps of meat and refuse there, 'dii Friday or Saturday lie heard Mi's. Emeny giving instructions to a porter' to dean up; the yard, and on 'Monday U* noticed that the offensive matter.'hW been partly covered up. ' To Mr. Weston: The heaps of stuff which he noticed were close to the parti-' tion fence. '' ' Walter Ernest Bailey, a laborer, who. was working'at Miss Simpson's with previous witness, gave evidence that'he had noticed, the bad smell emanating from the yard. There were heaps resembling stock-meat, and several heaps of excreta. tie saw the porter fill a couple of buckets with the decaying meat anil t,ake it into the hotel yard. The porter also tried to cover up the stuff with earth, and he made it worse than ever. Mr, Quilliam: What effect did it have on you?— Well, I didn't have a very good appetite, for dinner. The Bench: You'd want a whisky, I suppose. Mr. Weston. in opening the case, for the defence, said that the yard in "ijuestioii was attached to the cottage which was used by the mule employees of the hotel. Tii" fowlhnuse was not a-fowl-house in the ordinary sense. It' was merely a roosting-place and a yard in which Mr. Kmeny kept the fowls for use in the ho!i-e during each week, these having to be purchased on Saturday, the usual market, day. His instructions to the dav porter were that this place should be cleaned out and hosed down at least every second day. removing any refuse to tiie rubbish-boy, from which it would be regularly carted away. - The fowls were fed on leavings from the kit-' chen, and what the fowls left was regularly cleaned up. The inspector had frequently been over the premises, and had made no previous complaint.. This was fjnili- an isolated case. The defendant was quite una ware-of the state of the yard, but on receiving notice from till' iiiMicr'.or In- gave orders to have the place thoroughly cleaned up, particularly in reg.irl ti, s.mi" old bones and bottle's which had been left by the previous occupier. fie intended to ask the »Magistratc to see this refuse, which had not yet Leon, taken nway. > <

The Magistrate: If the smell has gone I have no objection, Mr. Weston said lie personally failed to see that the yard was in a bad state. It was a, great pity that proceedings of this kind should have been instituted. \lr. Fmeny was the licensee of the leading hotel in the place, and should not lie treated in the same way as a common criminal. The Magistrate said there could be no distinction, and even the Governor would not be exempt from the by-laws. Mr. Weston further said that on Saturday the defendant received notice from the inspector to have the place attended to, and before he had time to do anything these proceedings were started. There had been an undue haste on the part of the inspector in this. Fred. Stapleton, chef, who had been in the employ of Mr. Emeny for four or five months, said he had seen the inspector in the yard, and the latter complained about the meat in the fowlyard, mentioning that the bones would have to be removed. There was meat in a box in the fowlyard, but none outside it. The Magistrate: You have heard the evidence of four witnesses, three of them disinterested, that there was meat Iving in heaps outside Wie fowlyard?—They were heaps of dry bones, your Worship. The Magistrate: Did you go close to the fence?— Yes.

Did you see any heaps of meat? — There were bottles and

The Magistrate: Answer the question; did you see any heaps of meat or of fish?—No, I didn't see any meat or fisk about outside the fowlyard. The Magistrate: Now, I want you t# answer me a question, and I'm going to take your answer down. (The question was repeated). Witness replied, "I didn't"—and was again asked for a direct answer. Then, quailing under the close scrutiny of the Magistrate, and evidently impressed by the fact that his answer was to be specifically recorded, he said, "There was a lot of slush, like.'' The Bench: Oh, you're getting further. You know, you've got to be very careful when you get into that box. We have had four witnesses who said there was meat there, and now you say there

was not. Reply: I saw no meat. The S.M.: What was in the heaps then?— Mostly soaked bread—and meat out of ttye stock-pot. The Magistrate: What did. the inspector complain about?— About the water running into the yard.

The Bench: I don't think I can believe this, witness after .the evidenpe of the other four. It is quite plain to me that he is not telling the truth. Mr. Weston: I propose to ask your Worship to go and inspect for yourself.. -

Mr. Fitzherbert: I believe there were heaps of meat there, and .that they were ideating a smell. Four men'have sworn to it, and -when this witness says these were not .there,l can't believe him, that's all. I can tell by, the ,way hp'-j giving his evidence that he's not telling the truth.

Mr. Weston continued with his examination /of the -witness, when the Magistrate ' interposed, "I'm not listening to tile witness." Mr. Weston: Do I understand ■ Mr.' Fitzherbert: I "utterly' d"le.' : "ve. this witness.- lam convinced that he's not a. witness of truth. Mr. Weston: Then isn't the proper course for you to order him out of the box? i The Magistrate: I don't know that he shouldn't be ordered somewhere else! Mr. Weston: If your Worship is going to take up that position with regard to all my witnesses 'The S.M.: I don't say I shall take up thin position with regard tb all trie wit-

nesses. Stapleton then left'the witness-box. William George Emeny, the defendant, s;iid that lift had had only one previous .complaint from the inspector. His in- ! structions were that the fowlhouse was to he cleaned out every second day, and [ lie had generally seen it dolie. On Friday evening, he got Tippins' message, and Oft Saturday morning lie saw the porter cleaning up the yard. < He was removing a, number of dry bones and from the yard. These must.have been left by the previous licensee. He went back to-.hi* wife and said, "I don't know what o[d Tippins is kicking up a noise about. Tlri) yard's quite clean." He ■ sa.w the inspector on Saturday morning, but the latter; didn't speak, and even .when he brought his notice, to the matter he cleared off as if lie'were shot. Before rfceiying that notice he had cleaned up the yard; The boiies and stuff rerpained -hy.i'hls order until now, soi that the ■Court could see them. He'saw the yard ,every,fdayj and there' was' nothing to complain! about. ' ' l ; Mr., Qirilliam: Then, if th'e ®rest of your premises are kept in the same state •*£ that you are? quit'd satisfied?—Pe'rtfeitly satisfied. " ' 1 ■'•"•Mr. Quilliam: And' if it Wete fn the state: that these four Witnesses say.f— I wouldn't- like to say what' I think of ■tlie-.Hfitiiosses. "* ■/ . " I

' itfc; .Quilliam: Perhaps voii'd tetter not. urn ? »' - " i ' -.

■l'o Mr. Quilliam: He had'never seen excreta ivhotit the yard. He had received m'oioompJaints from neighbors, an(l was quite,.positive that his -ovfn : cook had irevcT'-jcomplained. ' >• t ''

n- iMf. Quilliam: And if Mr. Tippins says the.! coolc told him he had complained a , })otit i :it?'—lt would'be a lie.-

|frt ;the Bench: There was nothing to l complain of on the Saturday morning. <» Miv rWbston: If you'd oAly go and inspeetfithe place, your Wftrsh'ipi I'm sure j- it would be an eye-opener to you.. P'i"Tlie;fß.M;: It's no use going now. '' ill 1 .. Quilliam: Then,-Mr. Em'eny, we mity put it- this way : Whatever the condition of the yard was, you knew libout I it?— Certainly. ' , Ji ''Mrs. Lmeny, wife of the previous wit)ites; ;said that on Thursday morning fihev saw shin-bones and ii few, tins in the l fowlyard, but there Svas no Smell. •Or Friday 'afternoon theplfuje was very i waty as lit had been hosed down • verv late-thftt;^ay. Tl ! e Court adjourned to enable the Magistrate to inspect the premised. * falilv. .Wheatley, the • day ptfrtfer at the hottl, gave evidence that the tfowlhmiso 'was regularly hosed down,' There ww'no'heaps of meat lying about when ho came three weeks ago. The 'meat tliut. thp fowls left he generally carried te the pig-bucket, but on one occasion hi' threw' thi,s stuff up against, the fence. lie might have thrown a fewbiiiies under the trees, and onee lie threw pimie meat to the back of the fowlvnrd. On Friday Tippins drew his attention to tiie condition of a [lairs. On Sa'ttirday lie covered up some of the bono&vwith s'i'ls. and he gathered up some !of the oilier stuff. , i f lo Mr. Quilliam: He had thoujjM (lie yard was satisfactory, and particularly since it was cleaned up. i , To the flench: lie admitted that .(.here were two heaps of meat, fowl alii? fish scraps, and 1 he admitted that, there was an offensive smell. He hadn't iioticed any human excreta such as his Worship said he had seen lying there. 1 Mr. Weston submitted that <ihe inspector had grossly exaggerated tjhv position. Tt was not sufficient I o: prove fin isolated case of neglect on the- part of the. porter. ' -,i Mr. Quilliam contended that the defendant was liable, as he, admiljtr.l he knew the state of the yard. ; The Magistrate said'he had 1 that there had been heaps of ltieM, fish

and hones near the fence. Ho had seen evidences of it himself just now. He also thought there had been offensive smells arising, and the porter had adjinitted that. He had the evidence of the inspector, a constable, and two independent witnesses. He had seen the place. It was not u sanitary yard, and not fit for people to sleep near it. It was in an unsatisfactory state even at the present time, and there was excrement about. Kmcny occupied the premises, and was liable and responsible, for its condition and for any consequences which might arise. On the first information he would be fined £1 and costs £2 4s. On the second and third informations the defendant would be convicted and discharged. At the conclusion of his judgment, Mr. Fitzherbert said, "Mr. Emeny would likewise need to have something done."