RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1894, 28 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAT.

(Before H. Goldsmith, and E. W. Puckey, Eeqs., J.P.s) BEEACH OF BOROUGH BYE-LAW.

George Waite was charged with having deposited night soil in a public place other than that appointed by the Council. Defendant pleaded guilty, lie " understood that the place had been excluded from it."

Mr. Tyler appeared for the Borough Council and pointed ©ut the Bye-law. He said the principal reason for bringing this case was not so much to inflict a penalty as to let people know that there was a place fixed upon on which night soil should be deposited, which was a piece of land in the occupation of Mr George Cribb, belonging to the Church Mission Society, at Parawai.

Eined Is and costs.

UNCLEAN PEEMISES.

Samuel Bunting, charged -with having neglected to clean his premises, situated in Amy street, Grahamstown, did not appear. Defendant's wife appeared. Mr Tyler said the Bench could adopt one of two courses—issue a warrant for defendant's apprehension, or, if satisfied that he had been served, to proceed to hear the case in his absence.

Mr Tyler then put in Gazettejand other notices proving the incorporation of the Borough, and called attention to the Bye-law. John Brookes Mason, Health Officer for Borough of Thames, deposed—that he knew defendant, and his premises in Amy street, Borough of Thames. The nusance complained of was a closet,,the offensive matter from which was running on to the street.

Mrs Bunting said her husband was working in the bush, and away months at a time. They had only a very small yaid, and no means of disposing of refuse. Fined 10s and costs. A SOITLAE CASE. Thomas Trevarther, charged with having neglected to clean his premises situate in JBeach Road, Grahamstown, did not appear. This was a similar case to the last, a breach of Borough Bye-law. Defendant's wife appeared. Mr Tyler called John Brookes Mason to prove the offence, which was, as in the previous case, a dirty closet in Amy street. Another similarity in the case was the absence of defendant, which was the excuso put forward by Mrs Trevarther, for having a dirty closet. A fine of 10s and costs was inflicted. Court adjourned.