USE OF HOSES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21924, 8 April 1933, Page 5

USE OF HOSES

CASES BEFORE THE COURT CRITICISM OF CORPORATION. The allegation that while the City Corporation restricted the use of water by private citizens it was prepared to dispose of large quantities at a price was made in the City Police Court yesterday morning when five people faced charges arising out of the water shortage. James Neville Murdoch and Stewart Dalrymple MacPherson were each charged with using water for other than domestic purposes and with using hoses without having persona in charge of them. Bertha Glendining (Mr G. M. Lloyd), Arthur Corrie Miles (Mr A. Jeavons) and James Martin Samson (Mr B. S. Irwin) faced only the first of the charges. When the case against Miles was called Mr A. N. Haggitt, who appeared for the City Corporation, said that a water inspector found a hose being played on a vegetable garden. Under the by-laws authority was not given for the use of hoses, but the privilege was granted in normal times. When dry weather came, however, the privilege was abused. To use a hose was an act of bad citizenship, and, in fact, an unsocial act. People using hoses knew that at the very best they were causing a shortage of water on the higher levels. At the worst their action might mean disaster because there would be little water in case of fire.

Mr Jeavons said that Miles and his wife were away at the time the offence was committed, but a relative who lived in the south, where there was apparently no shortage of water, noticed the parched state of the garden—no doubt duo to a, rigid observance of the regulations—and turned on the hose. The magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) deferred fixing a penalty until all of the cases bad been heard. Referring to the charge against Samson, Mr Haggitt said that the offence took place at 0.45 on a Sunday night.: An inspector went to the house on receipt of a telephone message from someone who reported that a hose was being used. The inspector found that the information was correct. On the following evening in response to another message a different inspector went out to Samson’s home at St. Clair, but on this occasion the hose was connected with a tank. Evidence was given by John George Brooks, a water inspector, who stated that when he called at Samson’s house the defendant said that lie was not aware that the restrictions were still in force. Water was being used from the city supply. Asked by Mr Irwin how he knew that the water was being taken from the city supply witness said that he could hear the water rushing through the pipes when he listened at the stop tap in the street. A tank would need to be 150 feet high if it were to give thepressure with which the water was issuing from the hose which Samson was using. He admitted that he did not trace the pipe to the city supply. Mr Haggitt said that if the court desired further evidence he would ask for an adjournment. Mr Irwin submitted that there was no case to answer as it had not been proved that the water came from the city supply. As a matter of fact 92,000 gallons of water had been poured on a bowling green in the city, Certaiply it had been paid for, but, while the council was making a “ big song ” about the shortage, it seemed to be prepared to sell to all and sundry at a price. In St. Hilda hose pipes could be obtained for 10s, and they were being used now although the city supplied the water. Summonses had been issued against other people, whp had complained, and the summonses had been withdrawn.

The magistrate inquired whether other summonses had been issued and afterwards stated that he had been informed that one had been issued previously. Mr Haggitt: The matter was explained satisfactorily and the information was withdrawn with the leave of the court. The magistrate said that in the case against Samson the inspector had said that “so far as he knew” the hose was connected with the city eupply. The court, however, must be satisfied that the allegation had been proved. The charge would be dismissed. After the other cases had been called his Worship asked whether they had been brought as a warning. Mr Haggitt replied that plenty of warning had been given. It was idle for any citizen to say that he did not know restrictions were in force. The magistrate: Is the corporation disposing of water to howling clubs? Mr Haggitt said that he believed that one club had been supplied. Mr Lloyd remarked that cricket pitches had been watered. The magistrate: With a hose? Mr Lloyd: Yes. Mr Irwin said that he had been informed by the fire brigade that 92,000 gallons had been used on one bowling green, the price being £4 10s. This could be proved. The magistrate declared that these statements should be refuted if they were not true. If water was being used for less useful purposes than those to which the defendants had put it he must take that into consideration. He would stand the cases down eo that an official of the water department could be called to give evidence. When the cases were again called half an hour later Mr Haggitt did not call evidence but said that he had been informed by the town clerk that the corporation did not desire that heavy penalties should be imposed. The cases had been brought largely as a warning, and it was desired that they should be treated as such. Letters had been sent to the borough councils asking that steps should be taken to conserve the water supply, and they had offered to do all in their power. _ The magistrate said that it was apparent that when water was, in the opinion of the council, in short supply, steps should be taken to conserve it. la was a necessary step that the use of hoses should be prohibited. It was, however, felt by certain defendants that the corporation had not been as careful as it might have been in restricting the supplies of water to people other than users of garden hoses. That matter was before the corporation, and it was not for the court to make suggestions. Each defendant was and ordered to pay solicitor’s fee (10s 6d).