MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29238, 23 June 1960, Page 23

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr E. A. Lee, S.M.) COMMENCED BUILDING WITHOUT PERMIT I cannot feel in the circumstances that the defendant was negligent or neglectful, and will treat these charges as a warning to builders not to commence the erection of houses without a permit,” said the Magistrate when he convicted John W. Blance, Ltd., on three charges of commencing the erection of houses without permits in Lyttelton crescent, Waimairi, on May 2. Pleas of guilty were entered on each charge. The prosecutions were brought by the Waimairi County Council, for which Mr J. G. Hutchison appeared. Evidence was given that the defendant had applied for the permits, which had been granted, but had not collected them from the council offices before starting work on the houses.

“The council has many cases of people having their permits granted but starting construction work before the building inspector can see whether the foundation work is up to standard,” said Mr Hutchison.

John Blance, for the firm, said he did not know he was committing an offence by starting work, as he had had the permits granted to him.

I advised the inspector that I was starting work on them because I had nothing else for my employees, and was not told that I would get into trouble by starting on them,” he said. FACTORY NOT REGISTERED Failure to register a factory was regarded as a serious offence as it deprived inspectors of the chance to examine the premises and ensure that all conditions are complied with, and that employees’ conditions were safeguarded, said counsel for the inspector of factories in a charge against Moffat’s Hygienic Towel Supply and Laundry. For failing to register the factory the firm was fined £5. Evidence was given that the laundry, which was classed as a factory under ’.he provisions of the Factories Act, started in business in 1955. It was operated by a family and employed three other persons. An inspection last April revealed that the factory did not comply with the Act in several respects, including sanitary provisions for workers and unguarded machinery. After the inspector’s visit an application was made for a permit and the matters were now being attended to. PLUMBING WORK DONE UNLAWFULLY For digging a trench and removing the stopper from the sewer at his premises at 34 Tuam street, lan Burns Cromb was ordered to pay Court costs. Cromb, who was not a licensed plumber, was prosecuted by the Christchurch Drainage Board The defendant said that the floors in one of his buildings had been covered by six inches of water, and he had been attempting to find the stormwater drain which was near the sewer. He had inadvertently opened the wrong one. Graham Hole and lan Hendriksen were each fined £5 for carrying out plumbing work without a licence. REMANDED Edward Arthur Larson, aged 49, a seaman, was remanded to June 30 on a charge of theft of a suitcase and clothing, valued at £24 10s, the property of Theodoras Jacobus Brouwer. Larson (Mr G. R. Lascelles) was allowed bail at £lOO, with a similar surety. He was ordered to report daily to the police. DRUNKENNESS “I get these sessions now and again,” said John Stewart Kitson. aged 26. when he was fined £5, in default six days’ imprisonment, for being drunk in Manchester street on June 21. This was the third time within six months that Kitson had been convicted for drunkenness. (Before Mr A. P. Blair, S.M.) CLAIM AGAINST CORDIAL MANUFACTURER A civil claim, which was adjourned in February, 1959, after the summons was issued in May, 1957, was continued on Tuesday and yesterday. Maunders Cordials (Mr J. G. Leggat), claimed £35 6s for 235 dozen bottles, £5 for 25 dozen quart bottles and £l2 15s for 85 crates which it was alleged had been collected on behalf of Wright and Company, Ltd. (Mr W. T. Brown and Mr B. S. McLaughlin). . Witnesses called by the plaintiff company said that it was a mutual trade custom over many years for bottles collected by one manufacturer, but belonging to another, to be sold back to the owner. , . .. The claim arose through Wright and Company’s having gone out

of business without notice to other manufacturers and refusing to buy back the bottles and crates held by the plaintiff company. After evidence had been given by Edward Primrose Cremer Wright for the defendant company, the case was adjourned to a date to be decided.