CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21216, 23 December 1930, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, December 22. (before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. •A first offender for drunkenness was fined 10s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. THEFT OF MOTOR CYCLE. Gordon Jenkins appeared for sentence on a charge of having on November 11 at Morton Mains stolen a motor cycle valued at £OO, the property of John Hector Sheat, and on the application of Detective-sergeant Nuttall he was remanded to appear at Invercargill on January 24. FALSE PRETENCES. David Thomas Lilburne, who had previously pleaded guilty to obtaining £2B 10s from Godfrey Hall, of Hororata, by falsely representing that he had a thoroughbred English stallion named Belaton standing at Milton, and was remanded pending a report by the probation officer, appeared for sentence.— Mr J. B. Thomson appeared for the accused.—After perusing the report, the magistrate remarked that it was most unsatisfactory. *The accused, as an undischarged bankrupt, had not treated his creditors fairly, and the probation officer, in view of his general conduct and the circumstances surrounding the offence, did not recommend ’ probation. The accused would therefore be sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, the term to commence from the date of his first appearance (December 15). MAINTENANCE. Redvers Dundonald Thomson, whose arrears on a maintenance order were stated to be £3 2s Cd, was charged with disobedience of the order, and was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant not to he issued until January The magistrate delivered his reserved decision in the case of Louisa Ellen Styles, who was previously proceeded against on a complaint for maintenance in respect of her two children, who are at present inmates of a State home.— 'After reviewing the evidence, the magistrate said that the defendant was obviously unable to maintain herself, let alone the children, and refused to make an order. John Saunders (Mr V. Fletcher) was proceeded against by his wife (Mr W. Ruff ell) on a complaint for maintenance and separation orders.—After hearing the evidence of both parties the magistrate adjourned the proceedings sine die to be brought on at three days’ notice by either side. DRAINAGE ACT DISPUTE. His Worship delivered his reserved decision in the case in which David Anderson, Thomas H. Bradshaw, Percy G. Homer, Ernest "L. Mains, Charles Hopkins, Rose Emely Parfitt, Mabel Reid, W. Taylor, Alfred Washer, and James Donohue were charged, as occupiers or owners of certain lands on the banks of the Kaikorai Stream, with failing to comply with an order under the provision of Section 7 of the Land Drainage Amendment Act, 1913, to remove obstruction from the stream.—Mr O. Cooke appeared for the defendants Anderson, Donohue, and Parfitt, Mr O. Stevens for Bradshaw, M'Lean, and Reid, Mr Fairmaid for Washer, and, on behalf of Mr C. B. Barrowclough for Homer, and Mains. —Mr H. E. Barrowclough , prosecuted on behalf of the Drainage Board, At the original hearing of the case; it was submitted on behalf of the defence that the Drainage Board was not a local body under the Act. It had used the Land Drainage Act to give the notice, but when taxed with being responsible, pnder the provisions of the same Act, for keeping the creek clean, it had been denied that the board had anything to do with the Act. Up to a comparatively short time ago, the hoard had done this work, but since the last flood had come and done considerable damage, the hoard wished to put the responsibility on the residents. The land immediately below that of the defendants who were charged belonged to the City Council. The part of the creek flowing through this land had not been cleaned out. —After reviewing at length sections of the Act bearing on the case, his Worship said that Section 74 of the Dunedin District Drainage and Sewerage Act, 1900, provided that all lands or other property which the board was duly authorised to acquire might be acquired either by purchase or under the provisions of the Public Works Act, 1894, for all the purposes of which the board was deemed a local authority. This section was specific authority, if authority were needed, to hold that the board came within the general provision of Section 7, and was a local authority for the purposes of Part 111 of the Land Drainage Act, 1908. He did not think that the defendant’s contention that the local authority under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1008, was the local authority to give any notice under Section 7. It would be an anomalous position if the board which controlled drainage and sewerage within the boundaries of the district within which the stream in question was situate would not give notice, but another local authority could. He was of the opinion that notice was duly and properly given under Section 7 by the board as a local authority under Section CO of the Land Drainage Act, 1908. The defendant not having appealed and not having complied with the notice must be convicted. He expressed no opinion on the merits of. the case, as evidence was not before him to justify such opinion.—Mr Barrowclough explained that his instructions were not to press for a penalty.—His Worship said that it seemed undesirable in such a case that any antagonism should be bred or fostered between ratepayers and the local authority concerned, and he suggested that if the defendants were prepared to carry out the work, the Drainage Board might withdraw the proceedings.—Mr Barrowclough signified that the board would be willing to fall in with this suggestion, and the case was formally adjourned until February 2.