REFUSAL TO FILL IN PAPERS

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 249, 17 July 1937, Page 16

REFUSAL TO FILL IN PAPERS

Prosecution Under Housing Survey Act WOMAN’S ATTITUDE IN COURT , Dominion Special Service. Dunedin, July 16. Whether the warrant of an inspector appointed by the City Corporation under the Housing Survey Act was valid without being issued under the seal of that body was an interesting point raised in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr. C. J, L. White during the hearing ol two ’informations laid under the Act. Defendant was Maida Emmeline Frew, who pleaded not guilty to refusing to supply information as required by the Act and to obstructing an inspector appointed under the Act. When Ernest James King, inspector of the City Corporation, produced his form of authority, Mr. White, on behalf of Mrs. Frew, objected to it on the ground that it was not issued under the seal of the corporation, but was merely signed by the town clerk. He maintained that the witness bad not been properly appointed by the corporation. , The magistrate, Mr. H. W. Bundle, agreed that there might be some informality in the appointment, but said he thought witness should have the opportunity of putting the matter before the city solicitors. He reserved the point in the meantime. Continuing his evidence, King said that two of the council’s investigators called at defendant’s house and, as a result of what they reported, he himself visited the house in company with one of the inspectors. Mrs. Frew refused to allow them to make an examination of the premises, and also refused to supply any information. M itness threatened proceedings if she persisted in her attitude, but she said she was not afraid of anyone. An attempt to reason with her proved fruitless. and witness and the other inspector left. To Mr. White: It was a very large house and Mrs. Frew told him that there were only five people living in it. It was explained to her that if she would-supply certain particulars it might not be necessary to examine the house, but she refused to supply any particulars.

The magistrate said that the whole matter seemed farcical, more especially as defendant intended vacating the house very shortly. He then asked defendant if she would fill iu the papers.

“Why should I?” defendant replied. “I have a will-power of my own and something tells me that I should not fill them in and,” she added, "as a matter of fact I won’t fill them in.” The magistrate warned defendant that she was liable to a substantial fine if she persisted iu her refusal. “What if I can’t pay the fine?” she asked. •‘Then you will go to jail,” the magistrate replied. “All right, I’ll go to jail, but I’ll just not fill in the papers,” was defendant’s parting shot. His Worship remarked that the matter was trumpery, and adjourned the case till Monday, suggesting that in the meantime defendant would reconsider her attitude.