TOO MANY FOWLS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 257, 30 October 1929, Page 10

TOO MANY FOWLS.

DEVONPORT COUNCIL'S BY-LAW. ATTACKED AS UNREASONABLE,

A case of interest to residents of Devonport came before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. T. ,M. Jay (Mr. Fraer) was charged with having kept more poultry thin was permitted in the license granted to him by the Devonport Borough Council. Mr. E. Prcndcrgast represented the council. Mr. Fraer asked his Worship to inspect the place before hearing the ease, but later it was agreed to hear evidence first. Mr. Prendergast said the council had a discretionary power under the by-law. In this particular case it would be shown that 183 fowls were kept by defendant on a small plot of land, whereas lie was only licensed to keep 12 fowls. Mr. Cutten said it would be a difficult thing for a magistrate to state whether or not the council had used its discretion properly or not. Mr. Fraer said an unreasonable bylaw could not be sustained. In this case he contended a by-law had been made to deal with this particular defendant Evidence was given by Inspector Wallworth that defendant was keeping 150 head of poultry at Oxford Terrace. On the date in the information he was keeping between ISO to 200 poultry. Ills license was only to keep 12 on that date. -Witness liac] recommended the council to totally prohibit keeping poultry in that area. . By Mr. Fraer: Beyond keeping too many fowls, the by-laws were properly adhered to by Mr. Jay. Witness was not in a position to state whether or not the run was prejudicial to health. Mr. Fraer said the council, with a view to legislate in one particular case of Jay and Son, had passed this by-law. Mr. Cutten: The by-law is applicable to all the ratepayers. . Mr. Fraer said in this case no evidence had been produced to show there -was anj nuisance from defendants poultry-run. He claimed that the by-law was unreasonable and uncertain. Dr. Herbert Chcsson, medical health officer, stated he had inspected defendant's premises at Devonport. Ho had received a complaint regarding noises, smell, and flics. He wrote to the council that. he. had not found anything that would justify action under the by-laws regarding a nuisance. He had suggested to the council that it should proclaim an area within which fowls could not be kept. Dr. Chcsson said Mr. Jay kept lus poultry-run very clean indeed. He realised that under certain conditions there might be a nuisance where a large number of fowls were kept. Defendant said lie had kept fowls for a number of years. He started w'tli '0, and later averaged about 100 head. Hi* run was cleaned out, disinfected and Ran clod every morning. Mr. Cutten said the question was whether or not the by-law was a reasonable one. m-ii Mr. Prendergast said the council had power to regulate the control of poultiy in the borough. That power was given by the Municipal Act. it had the power to permit, license to keep, or prohibit keeping animals, reptiles, or birds, within the boiough. Discretion was taken by Devonport Council in the by-law to prescribe what number of poultry each person should be licensed to keep. Mr. Fraer said two experts had admitted that nothing offensive was noticed when they visited Mr. Jay's premises. Mr. Fraer contended that if there was no nuisance it was unreasonable for the council to restrict the number of poultry to be kept. Mr. Cutten said he would reserve his decision.