THE HOSERS. BEFORE THE COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 24, 29 January 1908, Page 7

THE HOSERS. BEFORE THE COURT.

IGNORANCE NO EXCUSE. FINED 40s AND COSTS. People who have refrained from hosing their gardens since the dry weather began to shorten the city's water supply have now the satisfaction of knowing that less thoughtful persons have been punished. Warnings about the use of hoses, without a meter to check the outflow, were issued long ago, but the cautions were ignored. At last a few of the delinquents were caught by the city inspector (Mr. Doyle). The charge against them was that by means of hoses they had used water which had not first passed through registered meters. The list of defendants comprised : — John Edward Ainsworth, Sarah Ann Boyd, Joshua Charlesworth, Frank Fanning, Robert Hannah, Patrick Mahony, Robert 'M'Kenzie, Thomas Horatio Nelson, Theresa Wardell. Only two appeared before the Magistrate, Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M. Robert Hannah said that application had been made for a meter, and the hose was not used by him. but by one of his servants. Patrick Mahony pleaded extenuating circumstances, inasmuch that he had only recently arrived in the Dominion. The Magistrate remarked that ignorance of the bylaw could not be pleaded as an excuse, as the City Council had issued warnings in the public press against the unrestricted use of water for gardening and other purposes. No one liked to see flowers wither and die, but, in circumstances which had existed for some time now, owing to the continued absence of rain, it was absolutely necessary that the utmost care should be exercised in the conservation of water for domestic purposes. He in.flicted a fine of 40s and costs in each case. John Lamb was also charged with using an "extraordinary" supply of water for building purposes. Defendant did not appear in this case, but Inspector Doyle said he only desired to ask for costs as Lamb had since paid £2 5s for the water he had used. The water was drawn from a house adjoining the site where tho building was being erected, and had not pasted through a meter. Defendant had since applied for a meter. Mr. Riddell said that this case was somewhat different from the others, as the water was required for building purposes. He did not, however, think that the offence should bo allowed to g^ by altogether, and he inflicted a fine of ss, with 7s costs. Thomas Thomson was also charged with watering a garden by means of a hose, thtj water not having passed through a registered meter. Mr. Wilford appeared for the defendant. Sub-Ini.pector Stewart said that defendant was in the employ of Mr. Wilford, and had used tho hose complained of on 10th January. Witness noticed that tho house appeared to bo unoccupied, nnd understood that defendant was in charge. By Mr. Wilford : Witness did not knock at the door to ascertain whethor the house was occupied or not. For tho defence, Mr. Wilford stated that defendant wms not authorised to use the hose ; further, that the house was not imoccupied, but was in the possession of a widow and her daughter at the time of the alleged offence. Inspector Doyle said he accepted Mr. Wilford's statement, and asked leave to withdraw tho charge. Tho Magistrate &aid tho information appeared to have beon laid against the wrong part} 7 . Ho allowed the case to be withdrawn. Mr. Wilford pointed out that there appeared to be no pixrtection for the occupier of a house if some one came into the garden and turned on tho hose. In this case he might mention mat if information was laid against tho two ladies they did not know defendant Thomson. Inspector Doyle admitted there was a flaw in tho by-laws which, however, was being remedied.