QUARANTINE REGULATIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11986, 7 June 1902, Page 3

QUA RANTINE REGULATIONS.

-UARtIE AGAINST A, PASSENGER. A case relating to the responsibilities of passengers affected by the quarantine regulations now in force in regard to vessels arriving from Sydney came before Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., at the Police Court yesterday afternoon, when Percy Rubery, of Eden Yale Road, Eden Terrace, was charged, under section 122 of the Public Health Act, 1900, with that, being a passenger by the s.s. Zealandia, a vessel ordered into quarantine under the said Act, he did, without having received a license so to do, quit such ship' on. -May 11 by going on shore to a place other than to the appointed quarantine ground, before such ship was discharged from quarantine. The defendant pleaded guilty, but said the offence was committed in ignorance of the requirements of the law. Sub-Inspector "Mitchell, who conducted the prosecution, said that the defendant, who was a passenger from Sydney, was able to get. ashore by representing to the fumigating officer that be had the verbal permission of Dr. Sharman to go ashore. The. latter, however, denied giving such permission, or of even being aware that defendant was going ashore. The proceedings were beinj* taken by direction of the Public Health Department, with instructions to press for a heavy penalty, so that the public might be brought to recognise that the quarantine regulations must not be ignored. His Worship (to defendant): You do not allege now that you received permission to come ashore? ' Defendant: I did not do so at any time; I simply walked ashore, I did not see the fumigating office:, and did not know there was such "an officer. It was no advantage to me to get ashore. His Worship asked whether passengers were informed of the regulations. Sub-Inspector Mitchell said that the practice was for the stewards to take the names and addresses of the passengers before they went ashore, iu orcle. that they might be examined by the medical man nearest to the place to which they were going. The stewards were invariably questioned by passengers as to why these particulars were required. Defendant: The steward did not ask me for my name and address. His Worship asked whether the master of a vessel was not liable if a passenger went ashore without a license. Sub-Inspector Mitchell said that this was so, but he did not know that what was done in this case was done with the master's cognisance. His Worship adjourned the case for a week, saying that he wished to know more about the facts. If a passengei could walk straight off a steamer without being questioned (as stated by defendant), there must be some laxity. If defendant could substantiate his assertions, it would be taker, as a mitigation of the offence. The defendant stated that at the adjourned hearing he would produce witnesses in support of his statements.