A PECULIAR CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 145, 21 June 1899, Page 5

A PECULIAR CASE.

KEEPING PIGEONS IN A DWEL-

LING HOUSE

At the Police Court this morning, before Mr T. Hutchison,

John Sorenson was charged that he committed a breach of the Public Health Act, section 56, sub-sections. 1 and 3, by allowing premises occupied by him in Hargraves-st. to be a nuisance and injurious to health.

Mr Geo. Goldie prosecuted on behalf of the City Council, and Mr C. J. Parr appeared for the defence.

The alleged nuisance was said to be caused by pigeons kept in a back room of defendant's dwelling house.

Mr A. W. Girling arid his wife, neighbours, gave evidence in support of the information; also J. Townley and Geo. Goldie- The latter witness

stated the birds were taking the air required for Imman consumption. The smell was very bad.

In cross-examination Mr and Mrs Girling' admitted they were not on friendly or visiting terms with defendant and his wife. Girling admitted he had threatened in the street to punch defendant's head.

Mr Parr, for the defence, said the pigeons were kept in a basement at the. back of the house, specially fitted. They were prize birds imported for show purposes, and the enclosure was cleaned regularly every morning.

Dr- Hooper said the living rooms were upstairs independent of the pigeons. A long flight of stairs had to be walked to the basement,, where the pigeons were kept. He visited the premises yesterday, and saw about twenty pigeons flying" in and out. Witness thoiight there was nothing to injure the health in the way the pigeons were kept. Of course there was a slight smell, but nothing to produce fever. The birds were beautifully kept

In cross-examination Dr. Hooper said he had often been in the house, and there was no smell. The family generally were healthy. He was called in lately when the children had the whooping1 cough.

In reply to questions by Mr' Hutchison, Dr. Hooper said he did not think to have pig-eons under the same roof as a person lived was conducive to health, but he did not think it was detrimeneal to health. Of course some people would not like the odour from *the pigeons.

The defendant, a baker, gave evidence, and said he was a native of Denmark. He had a "hobby" for pigeons. The room at the basement had two windows, and was lift high. A window was kept open night and day. He had had the pigeons 'four years. Everything about the place was kept clean, and his family had not suffered in health through the pigeons. Two other witnesses named Cartright and Cook were also examined for the defence. . ,

Mr Parr contended that the birds were kept in a cleanly condition and there was nothing injurious to. the public health. His Worship said that in order to constitute a nuisance it was not necessary that the offensive smell should be detrimental to health. . There was a judgment of Mr Justice.Stephen's, qn the corresponding section 61 the English Act to this effect. There was no doubt that there was a smell from these birds whick was disagreeableHe would convict the defendant, but adjourn the judgment for a fortnight to enable him to abate the nuisance.