THE WATER FAMINE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 108, 30 January 1908, Page 5

THE WATER FAMINE.

PROSECUTIONS B„Y THE CORPORATION. REMARKS BY THE BENCH " Tho City Council's water inspectors havo boon moved to special, exertions 83 & result of tho long spell of dry weather, _ and. m conseqiionce of tlioir watchfulness 'a batch of thirteen citizens wore .v called upon to attend: at tho Magistrate's-Court -yesterday and answer charges of unlawfully using water' for their gardens! Convictions were recorded, in tho majority of the cases, only two of which were not procoedod with. Corporation Inspector Doyle /prqsecutod/in/eachJca&Vi' •' John Edmund Ainsworth 'failed to appear in answer to tho general chargo of using tho ordinary supply of water for tho purpose of watering a garden. .........

Inspector Doyle ■ stated - that- the - informa- - tion was laid under the Water-woi'Ks uy-iaw of 1900, , which provided, amongst other .things, that it was an offence for anv;pprson to use water from the'ordinary, supply for the purpose, of watering a garden. A conviction and fine of 40s. and costs 75., in default, forty-eight hours' imprisonment, was imposed. ' ' Sarah Ann Boyd also, failed 'to?,appeal oV a similar charge to tha above, "arid'was'j c'cuivicted and fined >40s. and costs ,7s. Joshua Charlesworth pleaded, guilty to tho same chargo as the aboyo,..'and-;ivas' cori'vieted and fined 40s. 'and \7s.. costs,'.' His "Worship remarking that defendant should have been impressed by the warnings against waste of water, which had appeared in the public Press during the recent spell of -dry weather.' The lowness...of - the water in the. reservoir had been pointed out, and it' was foolisli of anyono to waste water for<gardens at the present juncture. ".Under"■ordinary" conditions it wasqrtitpt • .proper,., to water flowors—no one liked to'sed ihem (Tying for want of water, but the supply for' inhabitants of tho city must liiS "coilsiuorod-.first-'.

. Frank Fanning was also .convicted;".and I fined 405., and costs 75.,. His 'Worship stating that tho remarks made in . the last case applied to this 0110 also.: ■■■■•'■'! Robert Hannah was also mulcted in a fine of 405., and .costs 75.. Defondnnli remarked that ho understood thaf his employco' had used the hose oii.thogardon, hut lie (defendant) had previously made application for a water meter, but tho Corporation officialshad stated that they had nono in stock. Patrick Malioney pleaded that ho had not seen any notice warning householders not to use water on tho garden,;-! The Court could mako-no distinction, and ,entered .a conviction and fine of 405., and costs . 75.,,, ■. Kobort M'Konzia, who'-.was also firietl 40s'..' and costs 75., pleaded that ho had not had hisihoso out for weeks previous to the day on which tho charge was laid. lift generally put water on his garden and > can, but .on the night in questioh' he worit' home very tired and brought the hose into operation. At tho time tho offence was committed the water was .not. short at- the reservoir. His Worship, remarking on several cases, said tho fact that tlioiw.eather had remained' so dry should Iks sufficient warning to a person of average not to waste water without a warning, being given. Inspector Doyle: No' notice is required. "It is an offonco in the'depth of winter the same as it is now." . Theresa Wardell failed to appear, and was* convicted and lined 405., and costa 7s;1 Thomas Thompson, a pardoner employed by Mr. T. M. Wilford, appeared: on a similar charge to tho previous'defendants. Evidonco was called,,to;,show, .that-:dbfriis? dant was found watering, his employees garden whilst the family'' were 'absent from town, and tho summons was served oil Thompson, on tho assumption that.ho was in charge of the placo witliiii tho meaning of tho by-law. ».,«•. . i ■■■■■ 111 Mr. Wilford, for defendant, urged that tho information had boon laid 1 , against*tlio wr<ilig person. At tho time tho. offence was cbliimitted the.houso was under the care of two ladies, who were taking charge .of!'it.' '. "'i After smno further- argument, Inspector Doylo asked permission • So. withdraw -"the charge on the assurance from Mr. Wilford t.lmt tho house was ill charge of a caretaker other than Thompson. ' lu ~ Tho charge was ovohtuaily withdrawji t .as the wrong person had been served. .' Counsel pointed out that, oven if tho summons had been served on the''caretaker,'! alio would not even have -known Thompson. Further, if a stranger walked into a gardon nnd turned on tho hoso' who would bo [responsible? <•■ '.' AS Inspector Doyle admitted that there Wiis a defect in tho by-law, which they woro having remedied. - • John Lamb was charged with using."tho ordinary supply of water for trndo purposes of a builder. Inspector Doylo stated that in this ease defendant, had sinco mado aiv a;)-' plication for a motor, and had paid forV tho water ho used, so costs only would be,'asked for. His Worship stated that this.case was.different to tho others. Defendant would be convicted and fined 55., aijd costs 75.-.