THE TOWN CREEK NUISANCE

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4665, 9 March 1894, Page 3

THE TOWN CREEK NUISANCE

A Test Case.

Mr J. O. Ingram, the Inspector of Nuisance, for tlio Borough of Master ton, appeared this morning in the S,M. Oourt,charging Mr L, J,Hooper with allowing the watercourse on Ins premises to become blocked.

Mr Ingram gave evidence that od Feb. 24th he visited the premises of defendant and found the, watercourse running through his property blocked up at the culvert in Mcssey St. Further up the stream watercress was growing, and wiro netting dammed up the refuse which the water brought down. Tho water was not altogether dammed up, a little getting through. Ho sued under section 92 of the Borough bye-laws, 1 Cross-examined by Mr Hooper :< He came -in by the back way. Mr Maoara let him in, Tho Hessoy Street sluice-gate was not down, but he was unable to say whether anyone had lifted it. Watercress would obstruct the stream. Had visited Mr Maoara's place on the same day. Ho could please himself whether he brought»caso or not into Oourt, and it was not necessary under the Bylaw to give notice. Mr Hooper's property was close to the town and several drains tan into tho oreek, It was not necessary to be so particular about watercress whore there was no drainage. By His Worship, " You want Mr Hooper to olean away his watercress to lot the drainage of other people get away?" . Mr Ingram: " Not oxactly, Your Worship," His Worship auggo3ted tho better plan would bo to stop people higher up the atreet polluting the water with drainage, Power was given by the Bj-laws to do this,

By Mr Hooper: The Borough Council woto taking water from the creek for the gas-works and not returning it. If they put back the water, there would probably be sufficient water to keep the stream dear, if the hatches were taken away, By His Worship: "This is a jest case to see if the bj-law will hold good in Court." Mr Hooper: " That is a little hard on me." His Worship: " You should have hud some professional assistance, Mr Ingram, for it is an important case.". Mr Jas. Macara deposed that on Saturday the 24th, ult,, he went to Mr Ingram and made a complaint about the creek running through his property being stopped up, He showed the Inspector Mr Hooper's place, They saw boxes, timber and rubbish at the mouth of the oulvert, also some watercress and weeds, and a little higher up, some wire netting and much accumulation. He wanted to clear the creek, and Mr Hooper's damming the water prevented it,. If Mr Hooper bad got due notice, he would probably have cleared his part of the stream.

By Mr Hooper: Witnessdid notraiso the flood-gate. The whole of the obstruction was at the culvert; if thathad been removed it would have been all right. If tbev/ater used at the gas works was returned, it might make a Blight difference, but not very much, Had complained before of obstruction. Did not think it was the fault of the de-

fendant, .11 he had thought that Mr Hoopor was going to bo summoned, he would not have complained to Mr Ingram.

Mr Hooper (who kd conducted his own cnse, and done it remarkably well), then addressed the Court, First, he urged tbe technical objection that

it was not on section 4 that the obstruction existed, and no evidence had been brought to attempt to prove this. His Worship over-ruled this objection, pointing out that the obstruction was on Mr Hooper's property. Mr Pownall intervened, stating that he was drafting new bye laws for the Council and applied for an adjournment. Mr Hooper objected to tiny adjournment, and briefly 'pointed out the invalidity of the proceedings. He emphasized the fact that he had received no notice. His Worship said tbo information would be dismissed. After reading the clauses of tbe Act of 1881, by which power was given to make these Bylaws, he considered that they were ultra vires, The Borough Council had no power to punish any person for simply allowing watercress to grow. , (By Telegraph.—Press Assooiatio* ■ Napier, Friday, . The results of the second day at the Fire Brigades' Competition, are : Ladder Competition—Napier, first, £0; Timaru, second, £4; Palmerston North, third, £3; Masterton, fourth, £2, Manual Engino for five men— Christchurch £BO, time 50 sees, first; Asbburtoa £l6, time 50 2-5 sees, second; Eangiora £lO, timo 50 3-D sees, third; Gore £5, time 61 2-5 sees, fourth, Hose-reel and Ladder Competition | for five men-Timaru £25, timo 86 sees, first; Dunedin, £l3, time 39 3-5 Bees, second; Gisborne £lO, 39 4-5 sees, third; Hawera £5, 40 sees, fourth. Hose-reel, Flat and Ladder Corapetition for five men.-Dunedin, £3O, time 60 2-ssec, first; Timaro, £l6, 62 3-sseo, second; Napier, £10,63 3-ssec, third; Port Chalmers, £6,65 sec, fourth. Gisborne was disqualified. ' Coupling Practice for two men.-,/: Napier, £6, 43 8-sseo, first; Pafmerston,£4,4o l-sseo,second; Mas-i terton (Municipal), £B, 49 l-ssecs, third. Ambulance Competition, for five men, Napier, £B, llmins lßsec,' first; Dunedin (Railway) £4,l4min Msec, second; Port Chalmers, third. Second Ambulance Competition, for five men. Christchurch, £B, Imin 58 2-sseo, first; Napier, £4, lmin 31sec,:second; Dunedin third,' •Cbristchurch'' having •' won the manual engine oyenia two years in succession, the Association's shield becomes their property." , In the Manual Engino Competition, tbo Woodville Brigade's timo was 58 sees; Masterton (Municipal)'oß 8-5' Bcca. • y- ] v : . Greyto'wn was disqualified in the I Hose, Eeel, and Ladder Companion,

Muslorton (Yoluuteora), 48 l-Saeca j Masterton.(Mumoipal) 46seos. : • < Id the Hoße-reel Flat and Ladder event none of tlio Masterton-Brigades oompcted.