THE FLAXMILL REFUSE CASES.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9509, 9 May 1911, Page 5

THE FLAXMILL REFUSE CASES.

DEFENDANT CONVICTED,

was-:deliyefecl i)jr ; Mr ; A. P, ! Thomson,iS ( M.,^tliis;::morning' s in. the '.'casjßi : :'bro.uglik].by-'tho^pblioia'! E. V, ■lyeyien,(Mr Cooper),,charged,that within the:six 'months last T)a0; .btit prior to ■ March 14th, 1911, at Rangiotu, he-allow-ed, certain flaxmill 'refuse to flow into the Qrouft :■ being a -river /in which . trout/exis't, .contrary to! the; form of regulation Np. 8 made Under the Fisheries Act, 1908. The S.M., after quoting the regulation referred to, said that it had been,proved that about January _24, 1911, a. quantity of material, consisting of the green vegetahlo -matter beaten oft' the; flax blades by the stripper, at the defendant's mill, and also pieces of fibre which escape tho catcher, were allowed to fall: into a race and flow into the Oroya, These pieces of fibre amount to a considerable quantity in the course of a day, and are sometimes short and somotiraes long. . In some mills they are caught on spikes, placed on wheels revolving in the race, and thus taken cut of the race and.deposited on 1 the ground. In others, gratings are placed in the race, and the collection is periodijaily cleared away, At this mill neither of these plans, nor any other, was in U6e. This material is, in my opinion, "flaxmill refuse." "Refuse" simply means anything rejected, It does not necessarily meah that the material is absolutely worthless, but that it is allowed to go as not worth saving, and |hat, the Magistrate found, was done in this instance,

It may be, the Magistrate said, tl.at no. flaxmill can .be carried on without 'some refuse getting into a stream. He 'confessed that it seemed to him impossible to prevent some of the green vegetable matter which has been beaten off thebladeseo escaping,,but practically tho 'whole/of what is called "stripper low" could be caught, and is caught in some mills and dried and made marketable, and he had no doubt a, considerable imantity of tho green vegetable matter could also be collected by proper appliances. If, therefore, the Magistrate said, ho was satisfied that tho defendant had done all that was reasonably possible, to prevent tho escapo of this refuse into tho stroam, he would be prepared to act on the suggestion of his Honor, Mr Justice Williams, in re Booth 10 G.R..&31. At tho end of his judgment he said, "If so small a quantity is placed ihat really no harm would ensue if it did go into the. stream, the Magistrate has of jurisdiction to dismiss the case as trivial, although'there might have been a technical/breach." In the present instance, however, the defendant has done nothing at all. It was argued also that the flaxmill refuse is not injurious to trout. In. the opinion of the S.M._ it was not' necessary under the regulation to p'-ovo that the prohibition as to flaxmill refuse was. absolute, In any case, however, he would find in the evidence, particularly that of Mr Pearce, that it was injurious to trout. It had also been proved that trout exist in the Oroua. Defendant was convicted, but the Magistrate hoped that he would at oi>ce take at least similar steps to those taken by .other millers to prevent the escape into the rivor of this refuse. A minimum penalty of £2 and costs was imposed. Tho Magistrate added, that the'judgment would' apply to the similar charge against IL Jarvis; who was also fined £2 and.costs, . .':..•.• ■''•'■'• '-

On the other two informations—placing refuse near the banks of the Oroua stream—there was no evidence-at all against the defendant Lovicn, the only refuse montionod in his case was what came down the race, and for which he had already been fined. The case, therefore, was dismissed. 'As to Jarvis, however, there was the direct evidence ;of Mr McConnell that he saw a man tipping refuse over the bank, and Constable Gow said that when he was there he saw quantities of refuse on the bank, and down the side of the bank, and "othing to prevent it being carried in.o the mix, and that this was above.'the mill, not where it .could have been deposited 'by the race; On this charge also the defendant Jarvjs w asconvinted and fined £2 and costs.