CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18465, 28 January 1922, Page 6

CITY POLICE COURT

Friday, January 27. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) i Harbour for Rats.—Uhoy Lee was charged with permitting his premises in Stafford street to become in such a state, that they were likely - to harbour rats or other vermin.—The interpreter explained that tho landlord, or a previous tenant (it was not very deal*), had kept rabbits, and that the trouble arose from that fact.—lnspector King' explained that defendant used the premises as a dwelling and as a fruit shop, and had taken possession about April of last year. The - inspectors had been visiting the place since,, and had ordered defendant to keep his premises clean. On January 11 an inspector had called late one afternoon and had had a look through the place. Witness went on to describe the upstairs and downstairs portion of the house and shop, and _ said that upstairs Ihe floor was covered with onions, and there were mat- • tresseS' about. The roof was in a leaking condition. In the shop were fruit and vegetables. Downstairs the kitchen contained rubbish, which was stated to belong to' tho landlord. Defendant had been warned previously. The department that he (Mr King) represented had received particular instructions in regard to making inspections from the Director-general of Health. —Defendant wjjs fined 40s and costs (7s). Mr Bartholomew asked the interpreter, to explain to defendant that he was liable to a fine of £2O, and that thereafter, if he did not keep his premises clean, he was subject to a penalty of £6 a day.——Maurice Goughian, for whom Mr Gallon appeared, was charged with having, on January 11, permitted a cellar on his premises in Stafford street to gel into such a condition as to be a harbour for rats ,and other vermin.—The _ Inspector (defendant having pleaded guilty) made a statement as to visiting tho place on December 22, when Mr Goughian, jur.., was seen, and certain instructions were left. In the cellar there. were bags and boxes of straw, etc., lying about the floor. Tho inspector again visited the place in January and found conditions unaltered. Apparently tho only explanation waS' that difficulty had been experienced in getting a man to clean the place out. Later cleaning . operations had been started.—Mr Callan slated that there were two authorities that householders wore liable to account, to. One was the City Corporation, and the other the Health Department. It so happened that the Health Department, as well as the City Corporation, had visited the premises. One had gone round with defendant and tho other with Mr Conghlan, jun. _ The health officer had not specifically mentioned to defendant that he was dissatisfied with tho somewhat untidy state of the cellar, and the son had not grasped the fact that these were two separate people, whose requests bad to _be complied with. The father knew nothing about the other visit. Everything had been done promptly by defendant when ho, know what had to be done. There waa no suggestion • that foodstuffs or waste food were lying about. He (counsel) stressed the difference between having_ decayed foodstuffs lying about and such things as were found. It was. he contended, not at all a . serious matter, and hes was sure the inspector would admit that he had seen many places in a far worse condition than defendant’s.— Mr Bartholomew said it was . unfortunate that there had been an overlapping. There had been a misunderstanding, and a light penalty would meet the case. Defendant would bo fined 10s and costs (70).' • Maintenance. —Richard " Conghlan whs charged ' with _ disobeying an order of the court to contribute towards the maintenance of his wife.—Ho did not appear, and Mrs Goughian having given evidence, defendant was sentenced to throe months’ imprisonment, to be released on payment of tho arrears, which amounted to £25 19s 7d.