MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 February 1921, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH CASES. YESTERDAY’S SITTING. A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday morning, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. Angus Garner pleaded not guilty to a charge of riding a motor cycle, the property of his employer, W. Bransgrove, on which was an unregistered number. It was .pointed out by defendant that if his effiplqyer caused him to break the law, he (defendant) was not to blame. On the recommendation of the Magistrate, the plea was changed to one of guilty, it being understood that the defendant had the right to claim the amount of the costs from his employer. He was convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s fid.

On the information of B. Tippens (Taranaki County dox tax collector), Jas. Mudford was fined £2 and costs 17s fid for failing to register three dogs. Francis M. Grayling, builder and contractor, New Plymouth, pleaded guilty to a charge of erecting in Dawson Street a scaffolding more than 16ft above the ground without obtaining the inspector of factories’ permission. He was fined £1 and costs 7s.

Joseph Lobb, for leaving a horse tied up and unattended outside the Royal Hotel, Brougham Street, for nearly three hours, was fined 10s and costs 7s. The Magistrate pointed out that, besides being in contravention to the borough bylaw, it was cruelty to the animal. P Raill, for allowing a cow to wander in Whiteley township, was fined 10s and costs 7s. Jas. Crockett, a lad of 16, was charged with travelling on a motor cycle along St. Aubyn Street at an excessive rate. The Magistrate severely admonished the boy, and fined him 40s and cUsts 7s. Ernest Cubbens, motor mechanic, for riding a motor cycle without a muffler, was fined £2 and costs '7 s. SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. On the information of the Inspector of Factories, G. W. Rolston, fruiterer and confectioner, was charged that on Thursday, January 6, he failed to close hisshop at 1 pm. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The information was laid under section 11 of the Shops and Offices Act, which requires that shops shall be closed for at least one half-day each week. Section 18 of the same Act modified this bystating that such shops carrying on business as fruiterers and confectioners exclusively are not obliged to close. It was alleged that as defendant had sold cigarettes to the public, he was not exclusively a fruiterer and confectioner, and was, therefore, by the Act, compelled to close on the prescribed half-holiday. Mr. Quilliam, for the defence, pointed out the remarks of Mr. Justice Chapman in a similar case in Napier, where systematic trading was not alleged, but certain articles, such as cigarettes and matches, were stocked merely for the convenience of the public. Defendant’s gross profit on these articles per week did not amount to more than 6s. He asked that the case be dismissed -because it*was only of a trifling and casual nature, and further, because the prosecution, on their own evidence, admitted that fruiterers did stock cigarettes, matches, etc. Mr. Mountjoy (Inspector of Factories) pointed out that the new Act required that shops not exclusively carrying on business in fruit and confectionery were ! compelled to obserVe the half-holiday. Mr. Quilliam intimated that he would; substitute his former- plea for one of guilty. Defendant was fined 10s anfl costs 7s. DEFECTIVE SANITATION ALLEGED. On the information of Inspector Day, Jas. H. Shepherd, builder, Vogeltown. was charged (a) with failing to obtain a permit for building a house at Vogeltown; (b) laying drains without a license; (c) not providing proper sanitation arrangements for disposing of sink waste; and (df having—plumbing work done by an unregistered plumber. Defendant pleaded guilty to all charges. Reginald Day, borough sanitary inspector, New Plymouth, deposed that he had visited defendant’s place about the end of August last and several times since. The bad sanitary arrangements were detrimental to the public health, especially the method of disposing of waste matter through the drains. He had received no written application for a permit to build the house, nor had he been notified to inspect the drains before they were used.

A. H. Kendall, district health inspector, deposed that the sanitary arrangements were certainly not as good as they should be. Mr. Quilliam admitted that Mr. Shepherd had failed effectively to trap the waste from the sink as required by bylaw 899. The defendant had built the house for his son, who had returned from the war, and had not built it to sell at a profit. Defendant was under the impression that his system of sanitation was an improvement on the usual methods used outside the sanitation area, but he was willing, should the Court decide, to make the sanitation as required by the by-law. Defendant said that he commenced building the Jiouse about March of last year, but was hampered by the cement shortage. This was the, first house he had erected within the town area, though he had built several outside. He had sold the house to his son, who had received a grant from the Crown for the purpose. The Magistrate dismissed without prejudice three of the charges. The charge of defective sanitary arrange- • ments was qdjourned till May 19 to enable defendant to rectify th work.