WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?

Horowhenua Chronicle, 13 November 1935, Page 7

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?

PUBLIC TRUSTEE OR OWNER. MAGISTRATE'S COMMENT IN COURT ACTION (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Last Night. "The Public Trustee has been ex:remei'y dilatory in attending to a natter affecting the public health," said Mr \V. It. McKean, S.M., in the Dnehunga Magistrate's Court, when Mr A. S. Fa ire, District Public Trus;ce, was cited as defendant in an 111'orniation laid by the Manukau County Jouncil charging him with havin; 'ailed to abate a nuisance on a proK'.rty in Mangere. The evidence of the sanitary inspec:or for, the Manukau County Council showed that following an outbreak of icarlet fever, which had been traced :o an overflowing cesspool' on the property, the Health. Department, had )rdered remedial measures to betaken. Witness said the property had been ;aken over by the Public Trustee who lad lot the premises to tenants and iad been collecting the rent. The District Public Tiustee had since June ast been repeatedly warned to effect repairs to the drain, but had failed vu do so until after the in formation liao been laid. Counsel for the defence contended ;hat neither Mr Faire nor the Public Trustee was the owner of the pro)erty. but. he admitted that the District Public Trustee was administerng the estate as agent for the owner md was collecting the rent. To effect repairs to the drain, he said, would t>e inconsistent with the powers of an igent, a man named Piatt being the real owner. The Magistrate held that the rublic Trustee, Wellington, was the legal 3wned, who was defined by the Act as the person entitled to receive rent whether on his own account or us the [igent of any other person. He considered therefore that the wrong person had been cited as defendant. The Magistrate was consequently unable to enter a conviction against defendant and dismissed the information.