THE SMOKE TROUBLE.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 107, 2 November 1904, Page 5

THE SMOKE TROUBLE.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. Yesterday afternoon Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., resumed the hearing of the case in which the firm of Peter Hutson and Co. Limited, wa_s charged at the instance of the Corporation with having allowed smoke to emit from its chimney in such a quantity as to be offensive to the public. After evidence had been called for the deferice at length, his Worship adjourned the case in order to give him an opportunity of inspecting the locality of the defendant's works before giving his decision. Mr. O'Shea prosecuted and Mr. Hislop defended. In opening the case for the defence counsel pointed out the difference between the English and New Zealand statutes bearing on the subject. The local statute, he said, required that the smoke should be such as to be offensive to the public, and under the English statute it was sufficient to prove that the smoke was a nuisance either public or private. The statute would require to be interpreted reasonably, and in view of everything that was necessary to make up the various industries of the city. It was insufficient to prove that the offensiveness affected a few individuals. It would require to be either an interference -with the use of some public property or an interference with the people generally on their own properties. He then stated the facts of the case as set out in the following evidence : — Jfimes Cottrell, cab proprietor, residing in Wallace-street, deposed that he had six houses in the neighbourhood of Hutson's brick works. He himself had lived in the locality for twenty-two years. Sirice five or six years ago the smoke from defendant's chimneys had diminished considerably. Witness experienced mote inconvenience from the dust on the streets than smoke from the works in question. At one time he used to feel the effects of sulphur fumes from the kilns whilst Mr. Hutson had a special contract for making pipes. That nuisance had now ceased altogether. He fed his horses occasionally from grass cut from Mr. s Dunn's lawns, and he had never noticed that it was dirty with smuts. He never had difficulty in getting tenants for his houses, and he never received complaints from his tenants aKout the smoke To Mr. O'Shea: A southerly* wind from the works passed his house. It was far cleaner than a northerly wind from the city becausu the latter wind was charged with dtist. Robert Robinson, who resides on the corner of Wallace and Howard streets, Said he could not see what nuisance the smoke created. He lived in a southeasterly direction from Hutson's works, and found the dust in the streets was more objectionable than the smoke. Howard Parsonage, cabinetmaker, said he lived in Wallace-street, and had Jived in College-street. He found that the latter was far dirtier with smuts. Yesterday afternooh he noticed smoke emitting from works some distance from Hutson s and blowing across houses in Wright-street, where several witnesses for the prosecution lived. He also had resided in Tinakori-road, and found that the houses there were no cleaner than the houses in the neighbourhood of the kilns. He could always keep his windows open without suffering the slightest inconvenience from smoke. Similar evidence was given by William Prbbyn, Hugh George Booker, Richard Tolly, James Remington, "Alfred Seamer, Alexander Ross, and Thomas Wells. George Norbury, a retired brickmakcr, said he had noted the improvements which had been made at Hutson's works during the last ten years. Modern appliances had been adopted tb diminish the smoke nuisance during this time, and the works were now equal to anything he had seen, in either England or America. Antonio Bognuda deposed that he had been brought over from Australia specially to improve the stoking, etc., of the kilns. He described the improvements which had been adopted to diminish the smoke nuisance, and said the works wore now superior to any he had seen in either Sydney o* IJdelbourne. William Merry, a kiln burner who had also been brought over from Australia to assist in improving the works, g*ave similar evidence. Francis Henry Latham, Secretary for the defendant company, said the City Enginep- visited the works since steps had been taken against tho smoke trouble, and had expressed his satisfaction with the appliances used. Peter Hutson, Managing Director of trie defendant company, deposed that the firm had spent £600 In alterations with a view to mitigating what was said to tie a smoke nuisance. In 1903 1500 tons of fuel were cdnsumed, but iii the last ten irionths only 1150 were used. This reduction was due to the erection of a new improved kiln, The company was now installing a smoke cbhsumer with a view to further mitigating the alleged nuisance. This concluded the hearing of the case. Judgment will probably be reserved for a week in order to give, the Magistrate an opportunity to visit the works.