R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume X, Issue 3154, 15 March 1889, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—FKIDAY. (Before. Mr H, 8. Wardell, R.M.) BREAOH OF EOBOUGH BY-LAW. William Marsh was changed on ha information of thelnspeotor of - Nuisances, with driving' loose .horses hrough Bannister-street, oonlrary to ilie Borough-By-laws.; Fined fis.y Barbara Johnston, for allarasg ihimnoy to catch fire, was fineoTus•,■ - tnd 2s costs. - Inspector of Nuisances v. Henry )weu, allowiug inflammable: mate•ials, viz., paper and other rubbish ;o be kept on his premises.; -Defenr lant ploaded guilty, y: His . Worship . iaid, as a warning , to-other, lie ' ivould inflict a fine of 40?; _• s : Same v Mrs Corbett.—Allowing ' loapsuds and night - soil on her Jj to the . danger -of = the jublic health. In reply to His Worship the Inspector stated the - loapsuds.were fresh,: hut he- conlidered the Bmell .therefrom doirimental. to. the .health of tlie ; : leighbora. - Fined 10s with 7s costs. Same v MVs Tetley.—Allowing lightsoil to remain on her premises, ■ lontrary to Borough by-law. iined 5s and 7s costs. ' , - For a similaroffence Eobert Craw-< v otd was fined 10s and 5s costs. , - - Inspector of Nuisances v James ■& Macara.—Breach of: Borough byaws by allowing a quantity of weeds ■ md carcases of dead- animals to ro- .. main iu the creeli wbich'runs through:'.:, uis premises. -Mr Beard appeared for-' - defendant, who pleaded not guilty. •,:The Inspector stated thal on- tlic w 6th of March he visited |defendaiit'sij| premises and found tho orefek wliioKP runs. through his with doad cats and other offensive matter. He -reported: the' nuisance to Mr Macara in the street shortly ' after, and asked him to get the. creek oleared,. Defendant replied lie was - not responsible for the nuisance, and would riot, clear the creek. r : : His Worship: Is the nuisance complained of still in existence. : The Inspector :' ! am inolined to believe the - animals .have been ; removed, but -I think the weeds 'are still there. '.'v. ■ v; His Worship: Do you consider the weeds are detrimental. to the public . health' - ? .- Inspector :'ln a case like this the weeds are a nuisance, as they assist in blocking up the creek. - Mr Beard : Tho weeds you.complain of principally consist of watercress do they not? Inspeotor: Yes. Mr Beird: Surelj • you do not ■ believe that watercress is detrimental to public health. The general opinion j is that iliey are' very healthy. ■, • -,4| • The Inspector Biid lie did not com- ■ plaim of the wateroresa itself, but itwas an obstruction to theilow of the. • creek.- •' . Mr Beard; Are you - sure that it was dead cats and not old boots yoa - saw in the creek ?. : The Inspector.said ho was sure the dead animals were not old- boots a 8 ■ he;took the precaution -to put his/ hands in 'the . water and pull them out.:' o: : '• ■■■■.;!

Mr Beard: Will you swear that? Inspector:. No, but I believe what I saw too rotten cats. •; Mr Beard: Will you - Swear that 1 tlioy were iiot rotten boots you put your hands on? • ■; . Inspector: -.The ; oarcases were in bags; and my impression'was tliev contained dead oats. Mr Beard: Is this the. first time you have visited Mr Macara's ■ premises?' » Inspector: No, I have visited the™ ■ before. On this-particular oooasion ■' I was asked to visit ;Mr Maeara'a • premises by the Mayor, who said that the former had complained to tho -' Council about the state of the creek which ran. through his property. On the Bth November he-was also asked by Mr Macara to inspect the creek. When lie examined the creek on the 28rd February he found it in " the samo objectionable state' as he did when he laid tho-present information.

At this singe Mr Beard read a'-v lettor liia client had received from Mr Brown, Town Clerk, in ■ whioh the . writer intimated that the nuisance oomplained of by the Inspectorto the Council, was one in, which their \m interference .was not required. From T this it was evident a nuisance did not ; exist, and the Clerk's letter was con-' ; elusive on this point. ■ Inspector: The Town Clerk mflr': have misread my report as lie did'not correctly convoy what was intended, • Mr. Beard : Did you. wait upon Mr Macara or let him know: tbac you intended taking these proceedings if the creek wore not cleaned ? Inspector: I left a verbal message at bis office for the creek to bo. cleared out. This was the only * notice..; . Mr Beard: Is not the water forced baok on Mr Macara ? • Inspector: Yes, the water is dammed' upon Mr Macara'a property to the extont of: aboat eight- inches.. This is partly caused through Mr Hooper damming the creek lower down, ■ Mr Beard: The water is also .. blocked up above Mr Macara and his property, is consequently made, s refuge for all kinds of fifth? ' ; ' The Inspector admitted that the Borough dam, situated in Bannister ' street, above Mr Macara's, was blocked up, and when; let out occasionally flooded Mr Macara's pro-' perty. '' Mr Board: Are not these imt obstructions.the cause of the water . lying stagnant on Mr Macara's promises ? .. V':Inspector: I do not think the ■"£ water is stagnant, although at the v time I made my roport -tho water • | was not practically fit to use. I i believo the swing gate on Mr Macara's premises caused the rubbish to acou-' inulato as it was washed down, olherwiso it would be carried down - stream and deposited on other properties, ,■ , Mr Beard: Do you infor that the 1; dead/animals- found m the creek woro placed there by Mr:Macara ?. > . Inspector: I would not like toReplymg to His .Worship, tho Inspector stated on the occasion of lnv last visit, hp did'not find any oftensive effluvia arising from tho crgek.: He considered the. rubbish - and dead animals accumulating witli ' the watercress ,was tho ; causo of tho ■ nuisance. ;• His Worship: the nuisance from-the road.withoM'; going on to the premises, Inspector, No. I could not havo noticed the" smell from-.the road,wlw-; discovered the nuisance by both sight s J and smell when visiting the Mi Macara had informed me, oiTtt «• prevloua oocaeipni thai h« cquld t

J .•got mon to dear out: tho oreok wlion I • there was a quantity of water in it. I; ■ Witness.did not thiuk the water was • dammed up now. { • W Mr Beard said the real fact of the I l wliatter was that his client had made I • the complaint himself to tho Borough j Council to try and got tho obstruo- | , s tionß in the creek removed, He had | : • tried all in his powerto get that body 0 to force.othors to remove obstructions placed in the creek,: The out'come of the Inspector's report to the Council on tho. liuiaauce, was that his client had received a letter 1 * from the Oleik to the effect that there really was ho nuisance to complain of. : Under those '.circumstances, and being intima- ,; - tion, ho did not thiuk his client could be indicted, The complaint Mr Macara had against the Council was ~■■■• , on account of thoir not taking steps to force others to remove obstructions from the creek, It was not tho , Inspector, but tho local body, , who were supposed to show that they , wore satisfied a nuisanco really ' Jested, This had not been done, -'flPmd he submitted the information must necessarily fall to the ground, ; Ho also pointed out that tho proce- !"■ dure taken by the Inspector was •; ' informal. ■\ . His Worship, in giving judgment, i. ' said lie was not satisfied with the ; evidence, and could not convict op .. the information. Inhisopinion.it ; was the duty of the inspector to / report upon the nuisance to tho local body, and then take his instructions from them. The Borough Council ■ had intimated to defendant that they' found no nuisance existed. This he inferred applied to the creek itself. He also gathered from informant's evidence that he would not have noticed tho nuisance had he not been j prowling around himself. He would , dismiss the case, | James Bentloy was charged with a j jjfreach of the Volunteer Eegulations j ui failing to deliver up a cornet, the property of the Masterton -Volunteer Corps, value £B, to Captain Donald, when called upon to do so, This case was adjourned to allow 1 of au amicable arrangement. Charles McKillop v John Savage. ' Action to recover possession of certain premises in the occupation of defendant. Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Pownall for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. [Left Sitting,]