WARNING TO TENANTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 181, 1 August 1889, Page 5

WARNING TO TENANTS.

PROSECUTION By THE CITY AUTHORITIES.

A singular pass was heard at the Police Court; this morning before Mesbrs "Smith and Prime, Justices. G. T. G, Extor was charged with having committed a breach of the city by-laws by having allowed a nuisance to exist on premises occupied by him in Ponsonby. Defendant pleaded nob guilty. Mr T. Cotter appeared ou behalf of the City Council. He stated fchafc fcho complaint was laid under section 35 of by-law 37, which read as follows: —" Any person suffering or allowing any waste or impure water, or other matter, to remain in any collar or place within any building or premises in the city, or allowing any waste or impure water, or other matter, to run or flowfrom anysuchbuildingorpremises,upon or over, or be in, any carriage or footway, or other place, whether public or private, within the city, or shall allow the contents of any water closet, privy or cesspool to overflow or to soak therefrom bq aa to be offensive/ Mr Cotter further explained that the defendant had occupied the house for aboufc 18 months, and had himself notified the Council iv writing that the nuisance existed. He was informed by the Satiitary Inspector that he musfcabateit, bufc instead of doing sp ho left the premises. George Goldie, Sanitary Inspector, produced by-law No. 37, section 35. He was proceeding to give evidence as to tho existence of the nuisance when the defendant said, "I admit the nuisance, and that; I reGbrted ifc. I only contend that lam not able."

Mr Goldie said that he inspected the premises on tho 24fch of July. Ho stirred up tho well with a pole, and the stench caused them to run away.

Defendant; said, " I admit fchafc thei-e was an abominable stench ; tbafc was why I complained." Mr Cotter said thafc the position they took up was that a tenant could nob occupy a place for eighteen months, allow a nuisance to exist and then get rid of his liability by vacating tho premises. D. F. Evans deposed that the defendant bad occupied the premises from the 12th March, 1888, until the 24th July. He was presenb when bbc we'l was inspected. On raising the top of the well they saw down below an accumulation of vegetable matter. This well was the best in the district a couple of years ago. The house, was empty for six months before the defendant entered into possession^ aud he believed that the well was good when the defendant took the house. Now it was filthy through rubbish that had been shot inbo ib albhough there was a good solid lid on the top of ifc. Ho heard since that the defendant had left the house the day affcer the well was inspected. He did not however give witness notice. The defendant stated that when he took the house the well seemed to be filled up solid, in fact he did nob know ib was a well, until the web weather set in when the top subsided and he saw ib was daneerous. He then made a lid fco fit upon the top of the well. He bad thrown nothing down the well, beyond weeds, brambles, docks, ashes, and tins, but no offensive matter. A most sickening smell afterwards came from tho well and he reported tho matter to the Sanitary Inspector He would nob have reported ib had he been bhe cause of bhe nuisance. Tho Bench said that the law had certainly been broken, bub they would take into consideration the facb that the nuisance had been first reported by tho defendant. A fine of £1 and costs (355) was inflicted.