Which is the Law ?

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 168, 12 July 1888, Page 2

Which is the Law ?

Tto the bditob.] Sib, —Not alone is my mind exercised at the decision of the Court this morning, but I am convinced others will also feel some difficulty in arriving at a solution of the above query when applied to tanks in connection with shops, dwellings, etc. In the case of Borough Council v. Maude, heard to-day, it was held that a tank was a necessity and that it was compulsory that each and every owner must have one for each and every building, and urthermore that a penalty of one pound sterling could be enforced for each and every day that such tank as required was not where ths law (as laid down) says it must be. So far so well. Now comes the other side of the question. Some little time ago, in satisfaction of a judgment (Hubble v. Ledger), two tanks were seized and taken away after the contents (800 gallons of water) had been wasted. I then took legal action in order to have the tanks replaced, but in this case the Court held that the seizure was perfectly legal, and I wa* cast in costs. What I wish to know is this :— If my house must of necessity have a tank in connection with it, and the law as laid down this morning says it must, how can that same law allow any person to take away or remove such tank and by doing so cause me to incur a heavy penalty in addition to a serious loss ? The law, or rather the exponent of it in Gisborne, first says, “ Your tank is private property, and may ba legally removed by any person holding against you an unsatisfied judgment." Next the ruling is, " Your tank is a necessary adjunct of your building for tha maintenance of health and for preservation in case of fire, and furthermore the law says you must have one or else take the consequences. ” Now which is the law ?—I am, <fco., Altbed Ledobb. Childers Road, July 11,1888.