DECISION RESERVED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 4 October 1940, Page 7

DECISION RESERVED

BY-LAW REGARDING SPOUTING. MAGISTRATE'S COURT HEARING. Arising out of a oreach of the Masterton Borough Council’s by-law relating to the erection of spouting on non-residential buildings, Mr T. A. Russell. Borough Sanitary Inspector, proceeded against Richard Vallance Mason, plumber, and Commercial Properties, ltd., on a charge of erecting spouting not of cast iron or halfhard copper on a brick building built for other than strictly residential purposes within the borough of Masterton. The case was heard in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the Magistrate. Mr H. P. Lawry, reserving his decision. Mr T. Cunningham appeared for the defendants and Mr H. Mackenzie Douglas represented the Borough Council.

Mi - Cunningham submitted that the case would serve a useful public purpose. Commercial Properties, Ltd., were the owners of a section in Queen Street on which they had erected a butchery and a bank. The back of the section had been sold, and a block of luxury flats had been erected. Tradesmen had been sent round by the company to overhaul the buildings. Mr Mason had been called into inspect the plumbing and he had found that the cast iron spouting on the shed leaked. He had not been able to procure spouting similar to the original to replace it and had used galvanised iron spouting. It was contended that the by-law concerning the use of spouting was unreasonable, uncertain and inequitable in its operation. There were two adjacent buildings, one a block of flats in which people lived and the other a shed which housed motor vehicles and yet what was satisfactory for the flats (galvanised iron spouting) was not satisfactory for the shed, which required copper spouting. Copper was three times as expensive as galvanised iron. The matter was one for local bodies to comb out their bylaws and eliminate useage of valuable metals for non-essential purposes. Evidence was given by Mr T. A. Russell and Mr Mason, and after hearing Mr Douglas's contention that the by-law had been broken, Mr Lawry reserved his decision.

Mr Cunningham stressed the fact that Mr Mason had offered to take down the galvanised iron spouting ir question and to replace it with the re quired material as soon as he was aware of the bylaw, but he had been forbidden to do so by the chairman of the defendant company. In answer to a question by Mr Cunningham. the inspector. Mr T. A. Russell, admitted in giving evidence, that the actual plumbing job was of the best and fulfilled the necessary requirements but the material used did not comply with the regulations.