Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

«'m police coua?

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.)

Charge of Theft.— William Phimister, charged with stealing articles of the total value of £1 6a, the property of three men with whom he had been working on a farm at Inch Clutha, pleaded not guilty.—Mr Hanlon, appearing for accused, asked for a remand until to-morrow, and this was granted, bail being allowed, himself in the sum of £lO and a surety for a like amount. —lnspector Tardy Baid that all the property had been recovered.

Neglected Children.— Albert Duff and Vera Duff were brought before the Court as children within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act.—lnspector Pardy said that this case had stood adjourned in order that the police might see how the parents were behaving. So far as was known they went on all right until yesterday, when Constable Cooney, on visiting the house, found the mother absent, the children neglected, aud the father lying down with a bottle of beer beside him. It was feared, therefore, that there was little improvement in the management of the children.—The constable, being examined, said that though the father had beer alongside him he was sober, and the house was cleaner than it used to be, but the mother associated with bad characters. —The father of the children appeared and denied that his wife led an evil life.— Inspector Pardy suggested that perhaps it woald be as well to have a further adjournment in order to see how they got on.—His Worship, addressing Duff, said that he must keep his wife from associating with bad women. If not, the Court would have to take the children away. The case would be adjourned for four weeks. The Infant Life Protection Act.— Ethel Gilligan pleaded guilty to a breach of this Act by removing her infant from a registered home without having the written warrant of the inspector of police. Inspector Pardy said that the defendant, the mother of the child, had forcibly taken it away from the registered home kept by Mrs Harvey. Defendant had afterwards pleaded ignorance of the law, but he scarcely thought she was ignorant. He had, however, no wish to be harsh with her. She had been sick and was not in a position to pay a heavy fine. But he had to enforce the law with reference to these unfortunate children. This child had been well looked after at the registered home. —His Worship: I understand it is her own child and waH at a registered infants' home '!— The Inspector : Yes. Had she come to see the matron or myself we would have made inquiries, and if no objection had been found I would have been most happy to give her permission.—His Worship : Has an inspector any discretion in refusing a permit?— The Inspector : I have full power to refuse if I am not satisfied with the surroundings.—His Worship : For the mother to take her own child?— The Inspector: Yes, if it is not a proper place to take it to. If there is no objection to the surroundings of the mother there could be no reason for refusing a permit at once.—His Worship, after perusing the Act, said to defendant : Yes, the mistake you have made, or the wrong you have done.'is in not apply, iog for a warrant before removing the child. However, after what the inspector ha 3 said, I think a small penalty will be sufficient in this case. You are fined Is without costs. A Dirty Yard.— John M. Matthews was charged with a breach of the city by-laws in tha\ ; he, as agent for certain premises in Albany street lately occupied by Mary Ann Cullen, failed to keep the back premises so as not to be a nuisance. Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Richard Donaldson, inspector of nuisances, gave evidence to the effect that on the 2-1 th of last month he went to a seven-roomed house in Albany street. The occupier of the front part of the house was James Oliver, and Mrs Cullen occupied the back part. Witness found the rear premises and yard in a very dirty condition. There was about a ton of foul matter in the yard. An absentee named Richard Terry owned the place, .and defendant was the atjent. Witness went to him, and got the answer that he (Matthews) could not get into the place on account of not having the key and the woman being in the hoapital. He added that he believed someone went in to feed the fowls. Witness served him with a notice to clean up the place within two days. Since then witness had called six times and found the place in the same state. To Mr Hanlon : Witness got into the back through an opening in the fence.—Mary Stapleton, who resides at the back of the property referred to, said that the yard was very filthy ; witness could not wash in her shed because of the smell.—Another witness was about to be called when Mr Hanlon said he would admit that a nuisance existed on the place. He submitted, however, that there could not be a conviction in this case. The information was laid under section 132 of the by-laws, which required that every yard and so forth should be properly maintained and kept clean by the owner, occupier, or agent. These terms "owner," "occupier," or "agent" were alternative, and the proper person to be sued i in this case was the occupier, not the agent. —His Worship : We will take some more evidence on that point before going any further. said that there was nobody in occupation of the premises on the 31st August. The tenant was in the hospital, and Bhe had since died.—Mr Hanlon, then continuing, said that if any other interpretation but the one he contended for were put upon the by-law it would be unreasonable. It would be absurd to say that tho agent co aid be punished when there was actually a tenant in occupation.—His Worship: That is, he would have no right to be there—he would bo a trespasser.—Mr Hanlon replied that that was so. He had a case in point, the case of the Mayor of Scarborough v. the Rural Sanitary Authority of Scarborough (1,L.R.,Ex.Div.,144). The head-note of that case read as follows :—" The appel'ants, who were the urban sanitary authority of Scarj borough, deposited in a field ashes and refuse in Scarborough in order that the same might be removed by certain farmers with whom they had contracted for the purchase thereof. The appellants were not the owners or the tenants of the field, and they exercised no control over the ashes and refuse after the same were deposited. The deposit formed a nuisance. An order was made under the Public Health Act, 1875, by justices against the appellants for the abatement of the existing nuisance and for the prohibition of its recurrence. Held : that so much of the order as directed an abatement was bad, for it prescribed an act the execution of .which might involve the committal of a trespass,; but. that so much of the order as prohibited a recurrence was good, for it was the appellants' act which' created the nuisance.'-' That was a decision by Cleasby B. and Grove J., and he submitted on the authority of that decision that there could be no conviction in this case. Mr Matthews was simply the agent; there was a tenant in occupation, and the agent would have been a trespasser if he had gone there Inspector Donaldson observed that the Scarborough /ease was the case of an open field ; this was a smali place in a city.—His Worship said it was the same thing. The action ought to have been brought against tho person in occupation. If there had been no person in occupation the inspector could have taken what action lie thought necessary against the owner or the agent. The case would be dismissed.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18970916.2.20

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 10421, 16 September 1897

Word Count
1,335

THE COURTS—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 10421, 16 September 1897

Working