FLIES IN NEWTOWN
AN UNPROCURABLE ANTIDOTE. Ignorance of their duty in some cases, and alleged inability to procure the stipulated ingredients in others, were tho excuses given by a number of carriers and stable users around Newtown to Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., yesterday, when they were charged with allowing accumulations of fly larvae, to prevent which the city by-laws insist upon a, daily spraying with a specified mixture. The persons charged were .Tames Carroll. Edward Culliford, Louise Falliiie, Thomas .Jackson, Ngan Leo, Charles McArthur, Albert O’Connell, Simon Phillips, James Marble Porter, Fred Potter. George William Wood, and Harry Yates. Mr. L. C. Henry, the assistant city solicitor, stated that many complaints of the number of flies had boon received from Newtown, and the observance of the regulation enforcing daily spraying was necessary.
Tho inspector’s evidence gave all tho accused crod't for cleanliness, and oven complimented several upon tho condition of their yards, but the fact remained that, the daily spraying had been omitted. Tho delinquents were questioned individually by tho Magistrate, who said ho'would imnosc no penalty. It seemed strange that an ingredient such as arsenate of soda, should be expressly stipulated when apparently it was unprocurable.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19230110.2.80
Bibliographic details
Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 88, 10 January 1923, Page 8
Word Count
198FLIES IN NEWTOWN Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 88, 10 January 1923, Page 8
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in