MUNICIPAL LAW

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 145, 17 December 1919, Page 8

MUNICIPAL LAW

Mr. E. Page, S.M., delivered his reserved judgment yesterday in the case of W B. Gough, borough inspector at Petone, against Mrs. Rebecca Love, a resident of the borough. The defendant was the owner of a dwelling in Petone and was served, with a notice to connect her premises with the sewage drainage system. The conditions of'the notice were not carried'out, and in consequence proceedings wore taken. The defence set up was that the Muncipal Corporations Act, 1908, did not authorise the Petone Council to require an owner to do tho work set out in the notice, particularly in regard to sanitary provisions; that sections 51 and 56 of the Public Health Act, 1908, led to the conclusion that any kind of privy was sufficient so long as it was not allowed to become a nuisance or injurious to health; and if the borough council had power to require the work to be done, the council, before ordering it, had to consider tho circumstances of each particular dwelling, and could not, in a general resolution, order all dwellings in a block, or street, to be provided with water privies. In answer to the first ground, the Magistrate said that the Municipal Corporations Act was wide enough to cover the work to be done, as required in the present case. In regard to the second, the express powers given under section 216 of that Act were not modified by sections 51 and 56 of the Public Health Act, and the powers granted by the Municipal Corporations Act were exercisable even though the premises might conform to the requirements of the Public Health Act. Respecting the third ground, evidence had not been adduced to show that the council had not considered the case of the premises on its merits, but indicated that it had. The defendant was convicted and- fined £5, with £2 9s costs. -Mr. R. C. Kirk appeared for the informant, and Mr. Ross for the defendant.