SAWMILL OFFENCES

Grey River Argus, 12 September 1944, Page 7

SAWMILL OFFENCES

HEARD AT GREYMOUTH. Another case in the series of informations laid against sawmilling iirrns and employees this year, by the forestry Department, was heard before Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., m the Magistrates Court, at Greymouth, yesterday. In this case the Conservator of Forests proceeded against Ogilvie and Company Ltd., on a charge that on November 11, 1943, at Wood s Creek and in a State forest, they did operate tv log hauler without an adequate spark arrestor; and that they did on the same date fail to notify the nearest State Forestry Officer, of a fire which had occurred in a State forest at Wood’s Creek. A charge against William T. Ogilvie, J’unr., for failing to notify a lire, was with-1 drawn.

Mr. J. W. Hannan appeared for defendants and pleaded guilty. • Mr. Kitchingham said that the circumstances in the first charge were somewhat- unusual. Under the regulations of 1940, sawmillers were required to obtain the permission .of the Conservator of Forests in order to operate a stationary engine without a spark arrestor. The defendant company had a boiler and obtained the approval of the Conservator to operate it without an arrestor. Then the regulations were amended, providing that it was compulsory for all engines to be equipped with arrestors irrespective .of whether permission had been granted or not. The onus was on the sawmillers to provide the arrestors. A copy of the notice was sent to all millers. Last year a' fire had occurred in the vicinity of the company’s winch. An area of one and a-half acres on cut-over bush was burned in two patches. The fire was speedily put out by mill employees, but it ’was not reported until it was notified by a Forestry Department ranger two weeks afterwards. Mr. Hannan suggested that 'the offence called for no more than a nominal penalty. It seemed extraordinary that the first charge had been brought at all. Permission had been given Ogilvie and Company) to use the machine without a spark arrestor, and the only, notification otherwise was a copy of the regulation which a layman could not understand. The fire was not even reported to the company, having been put out by the men at the winch, and the first time defendants knew about it was when the Forestry Ranger mentioned it. A report had been sent to the Department then.

“There is no question that the failure to report the fire had any effect on its being extinguished quickly,” commented the Magistrate. “The circumstances certainly are unusual in the first charge,” he added, convicting defendant company and ordering them to pay costs 12s only, with solicitors’ fee £1 Is. “This is only a minor case,” he added .of the second charge, “but it is important: that these fires should be reported. Defendants will be convicted and fined £l, with 10s costs and £1 Is solicitor’s fee.