SEPTIC TANK TROUBLE

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16192, 19 March 1913, Page 2

SEPTIC TANK TROUBLE

CONNECTION MADE WITHOUT 1 PERMIT.

ACTION AGAINST DR FINCH.

TO BE WITHDRAWN BY DRAIN*

AGE BOARD. t Some time ago legal proceedings were instituted against Dr H. E. Finch, District Health Officer, for having dis-| charged the effluent from a septio tank' on his premises into Dudley Oreelo' without having first obtained a permit from the Drainage Board. At; thai .meeting of the Board, held last night,', a letter was read from Dr Finch to Mr," T. W. Stringer, his solicitor, and for-" warded by the latter to the Board, ini which the matter was explained. J ■ The doctor, in his letter, said that he thought the action of the Board hadj arisen through a misunderstanding. He had no intention of defying the Board.' He had applied for a permit before ha. had discharged any effluent into Dudley. Creek," and it was refused. He did not] understand the action of the. Board,],, since it was on his recommendation,] - that the District Health Officer in 1907. drew up by-laws for septic tanks, and,'. at the request of the Drainage Board, I submitted a standard of purity for tha effluent, which WQ s adopted. He was; aware, in his 'official capacity, that the»j intention of the by-law was to.bring thjat effluent of private septic tanks up to a>' good standard, and not to prohibit 1 their installation without good reason.] As an expert in publio health, he had. installed a septic tank as the -best means of dealing with the drainage in' ; his locality, and had :»ot purposely con-' travened the by-laws of the Board. .. j" The chairman moved that the prose-,' cution which had been instituted should; be withdrawn, and the matter ped, in view of the doctor's explana* tion. j Mr Barlow moved, as an ameud*

ment, that the prosecution should b£ withdrawn, provided that the docto# paid the exi>enses. i It was stated that the doctor had not yet applied for a permit, and that the tank was still connected with the creek. The chairman said that it had been a ridiculous thing to refuse the permit. •

Mr Staples said that if any small man in the city had done the same thing as Dr Finch had, the case would have been proceeded with long ago. instead of it being held over for threa months, as the present case had been. It was unfair to treat Dr Finch differently from other people because he was district, health officer. Mr J. Richardson said that it was not right that the doctor should be. allowed to flout the Board by having his septic tank still operating when a permit had been applied for and refused.

Mr Borlow said that now he had learned that the doctor still had his tank connected, he would add words to his motion to make it a 'further, condition of the prosecution being stopped that ilia doctor should disconnect the tank.

Mr Qtley: And connect if again tomorrow, on obtaining a permit! Aro we men or children on this Board?

Mr Barlow's amendment that the prosecution should ho withdrawn on tin s doctor paying the costs of the action and disconnecting the tank was carried.