ALLEGED BREACH.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 100, 13 September 1912, Page 6

ALLEGED BREACH.

BY-LAW CASE DISMISSED. A breath of the borough by-lawn \r;:s alleged against Frank Wilson in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, lie being eliarged with having failed to conneet his house on seetion 1077, iff)' 1 - son street, with the borough sewers. T;:borough inspector (Mr. B. Tippins) pn>seeuted. and Mr. G. Grey defended. Evidence was given by the inspector to the effect that he had served defendant with a notice to connect his property with the sewers on April 1, and on May 3 defendant paid £3. the connecting fee for joining the sewer to his boundary, lie served another notice at the beginning of August, notifying defendant that if something were not done proceedings would be taken. Nothing was done till August 28, when a plan was put into the office by the contractor, Hartnell, and the fee (2s 6d) paid in. Since the information was laid Wilson had completed. Cross-examined by Mr. Grey, the Inspector said that Wilson had told him that he would get the work done. lie knew that there was already a drain, which had been passed by the borougli engineer, but he denied that defendant had told him three weeks after the service of the notice that he would connect as soon as the weather permitted. The defendant stated that he had been served by the inspector with a notice to connect, with the sewers, but not on the date specified in the charge. The weather was very bad, and he told the Inspector that he' would have the work done as soon as the weather permitted. The contractor and hinisel went up to look at the drain, and Hartnell suggested that as the work had been done so long ago, they had better see the engineer. The sewer was not yet connected with his boundary, hut this was the duty of the borough, otherwise everything was in order for the connection on his side. George W. Hartnell, contractor, was called as a witness. He said that defendant employed him about August 1.1 to put in his drain. They nude an appointment with the borough engineer to come and look at the drain, and the latter expressed himself as quite satisfied with the drain as it stood. He got out plans, and paid the permit fee, but owing to an oversight did not do this [ till the date on which the information I was laid. This was not defendant's fault. . He then completed the work, but the I borough bad not done their part, through ■ what he thought was an oversight. In dismissing the information, the Magistrate said that the fact that the | connection had not been made within I the specified time was apparently the I fault of the Borough Council.