REFUSED TO OUIT.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17978, 25 March 1930, Page 7

REFUSED TO OUIT.

TENT ON RIVERSIDE. MOTORISTS’ CAMP DISPUTE. COUNSEL’S BRUSH WITH BENCH. An echo of Ihe trouble with the occupier of the land adjacent to the Hamilton motorists’ Camp was heard in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court, to-day, before Mr, S- L. Paterson S.M., when Duncan Alexander Calderwood was charged with failing to remove a tent when requested to do so by the council and with creating a nuisance. Mr W. J. King, instructed by the Borough Solicitor, explained the position as reported when the case came before the Court a week agoHe said that Calderwood in November last erected a tent on land adjoining the motorists’ camp. The inspector considered that where his tent was pitched was unsatisfactory and that if he shifted it to more wholesome ground and cleaned the, ground up generally he would be granted a permit. The permit was eventually granted for a limited period until January 30 last. At this time the motor camp was in •close proximity to full sanitary conveniences, shower baths, water supply and cooking arrangements being opened for 'the use of motorists. Owing to same difference with Calderwood, however, the camp was closed and the conveniences were locked up. This left Calderwood without any sanitary conveniences or water supply. in these circumstances and Cal. derwood’s license having expired, he was given notice to remove his .tent. This no'lice he ignored. The Health Inspector visited the area on February it) in company with the senior health officer of Auckland. The inspector revealed that there was no water supply, no drainage and no sanitary conveniences. The only water was what percolated through from an adjoining section. Calderwood was using this. The interior of the tent was very untidy, with clothes lying about. Defendant had also been selling ice cream and other foodstuffs from an adjoining shed. It was also ascertained that any offal- was buried on the section. In an Untidy Condition. John William Lewis, Hamilton Bor. ough Sanitary Inspector, said that when lie visited the tent in February in company with the Senior Health Inspector of Auckland, he found the interior in a very untidy condition. The tent occupied exactly the same ground as on his previous visits. There were absolutely no conveniences whatever on the ground. Round about the -tent was a quantity of refuse and Mrs Calderwood had been doing some washing near the tent and the ground was saturated. The tent fly was partlv down and no air was circulating ; through the tent. At the back of a I small tent was a sump hole filled i with tins and stones. The floor of I the tent was earthen, clothes were strewn about and a quantity of cigaiette butts lay on the floor. Mrs Calderwood, in answer to a question said she disposed of all refuse about the grounds and amongst trees. In answer to Mr L. Tompkins, who appeared for Calderwood, witness said the motor camp had been established there for two years. The conveniences were situated practically on the edge of Caldcrwood’s land. During a portion of the time, that Calderwood had been there, a chai’ge had been made to motorists erecting tents. Wit. said he had never found any complaints with tents pitched in the camp had done a fair amount of work in or on Calderwood’s land. Calderwood had done a fair amount of work in clearing 'the section. Prior to Calderwood’s arrival there was a good accumulation of tins and rubbish on the section. Some time later in cross.examination the Magistrate stopped Mr Tompkins with the remark that most, of his cross-examination seemed quite irrelevant. Mr Tompkins said he must ask the court to allow him to ascertain the full facts, as there was far more in the case than met the eye. To Cal. derwood the matter was a Aery serious one, as it was an attempt to drive him from the land where he desired to make his home. Mr Paterson: So they should if the conditions were as stated by the inspector. Mr Tompkins said the same conditions had existed for a couple of years. Mr Paterson: That does not make the position any better. It only aggravates it. Permit for Cottage Refused. The inspector said that during the time the motorists’ camp was open, the borough had a man in attendance daily cleaning up the ground. In answer to further questions by Mr Tompkins, witness said Caldcr. wood had submitted plans for a threeroomed cottage, but the council had refused to grant him a permit, as the plans did not answer the council's requirements. The (Magistrate said the man had no right to continue a nuisance on the property against the wish of the council. If he submilled proper plans which complied with the bor- . ough requirements, and permission was then refused, defendant would then have his remedy by applying for a writ of mandamus compelling the council to permit him to erect such premises. Mr Tompkins: It would seem that such a course will have to be adopted. The Magistrate said that if an epidemic broke out and was traced to this spot, the council would probably be blamed for permitting such conditions. Mr Tompkins. The council would be to blame for locking up the conveniences. The Magistrate: Defendant had no right to use these conveniences. It was his duly to provide his own conveniences. Witness said he was not aware that the council had closed the camp because Calderwood was competing -with themWilliam Armour, senior Health Inspector, Auckland, gave evidence ol‘ the unsatisfactory condition of the lent end grounds. During Mr.. Tompkins’ cross-exam-ination of witness, ihe magistrate requested him several limes to slick to the point and not to deal witli irrelevant matters. Mr. King complained that Mr. Tompkins was asking questions of Ihe Auckland health inspector, who know little of the conditions and had failed to ask the same questions of the Hamilton inspector, who was well acquainted with

the position and could have answered them. Abridgment of Rights, , The magistrate subsequently checked Mr. Tompkins again, telling him he was not doing his client’s case any good bv trying to mislead the Court. “Mr. Tompkins: It is not fair to say I am trying to mislead the Court and I resent the imputation very much. If Your Worship still says I have misled the Court I have no option hut to withdraw from the case. He considered, he said, he was perfectly justified in the line of crossexamination he had adopted. The magistrate said lie would accept Mr. Tompkins’ assurance that he had no desire to mislead the Court and asked him to get to, the point. Mr. Tompkins [said the council’s whole opposition, to Calderwood was based on the fact that he was competing with them in their motor camp. The motorists who had used Calderwood’s ground had been perfectly satisfied and had preferred his ground to that thrown open by the council. The authorities had closed the conveniences and had refused Calderwood permission to erect his own conveniences. The council had the power, if it sincerely decided to abate the nuisance, itself to connect the property with the sewerage and to charge Calderwood with it, Ic seemed a most unjustifiable abridgment of Caldcrwood’s rights that he should not be allowed to erect a dwelling on the land. The town clerk, in a letter to Calderwood, had slated that the council’s refusal of his application was due to the fact that the consent of the owner of the land had not been obtained in writing. The council knew, said Mr. Tompkins, that the owner, or’one of them at any rate, was somewhere in America'and that his address was unknown. Counsel said Calderwood had offered to lease or buy the conveniences erected by the borough. Magistrate to Inspect Land. As to the charge of a nuisance having been created, counsel said there had been no positive evidence of such. The utmost that had been said was that the interior of the tent was untidy. Defendant, Duncan Alexander Calderwood, labourer, said he had permission from his uncle, owner of the land, to use the land as he thought fit. He first- went into occupation in November last. He made the same charge to motorists camping on his land as did the borough council on theirs. While the camp was in operation he kept the ground tidy and after each tent was struck he cleaned up the ground. He said that he had applied for a permit to erect a three-roomed cottage and had filled in the necessary forms to connect the property with the Borough sewerage. His application had, however, been refused. Witness explained how some of the refuse was buried and the balance was collected by the borough service. In answer to Mr. King, defendant said he had received permission from his uncle in Apierica, part-owner of the property, five years ago, to occupy the section. He could not produce the letter conveying this authority, as it was locked away in a box which was in storage. Defendant said it was not true that he had said he would “beat the and that he had put a small building or. wheels in order to overcome the objection to a tent. The magistrate at this stage adjuorned the case to inspect the lano^ By-law Had Been Broken. On resmption, His Worship said there was no doubt the by-law had been broken 'and defendant had doubtless acted somewhat wilfully in the matter. Still, llis Worship thought it would be sufficient to convict and order him to pay costs. With regard to the charge of having created a nuisance, His Worship said it was clear from the evidence that from February 14 a nuisance had existed upon the premises. Defendant had complained that the borough council had refused him permission to install sanitary and water services. If the borough council’s refusal was on the grounds that written permission had not been produced to occupy the ground, defendant could easily have remedied this by producing his written authority. His Worship did not consider the suggestion that the borough council had acted maliciously could he sustained. The council had a very serious responsibility in the matter of maintaining public health and His Worship was not satisfied, after his inspection that day, that the premises were yet beyond cause for complaint. The ground was soaked, flic water supply was of a primitive t.vpe and there were flics and mosquitos about. The council was not bound to throw open its conveniences to ids use, so that defendant could have no grounds for grievance on this score. His Worship convicted defendant on the second count also a,ml ordered him to pay the costs. The magistrate pointed out that the effect of this conviction would he that if defendant remained on the ground he would be liable to a cumulative fine of £5 a day during his occupancy hereafter until he was granted the necessary permission to remain.