PORT CHALMERS NEWS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23436, 26 February 1938, Page 22

PORT CHALMERS NEWS

MAGISTRATE'S COURT A sitting of the Port Chalmers Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. MONEY ACCEPTED FOR PETROL William Charles Parker, who was represented by Mr B. A. Quelch, pleaded not guilty to a charge of carrying passengers in a private car without having a proper licence and with a breach of the Third Party Insurance Act. Traffic Inspector Mackay prosecuted. Evidence was given by William David McLeod, an employee of the Transport Department, who said he had met the defendant at the Port Chalmers cemetery and had asked him where to find a taxi to take him to St. Leonards. The defendant offered to take witness there in his car and did so. On the way they were stopped by Inspector Mackay, who told the defendant that there had been complaints of his carrying passengers. On reaching St. Leonard’s, witness offered to pay the defendant, who stated that he could not accept a fee. He had, however, agreed to take the cost of the petrol and witness nlaced 4s on the seat of the car,

Inspector Mackay stated that he stopped the defendant at Sawyers Bay on the occasion referred to and told him there had been complaints about him. The defendant denied ever taking passengers for payment, but subsequently admitted having carried people who had shared the petrol expenses. The defendant, in evidence, admitted having driven McLeod, whom he did not know, to St. Leonards and having agreed to accept payment for the petrol used. McLeod then placed 4s on the seat and walked away. The defendant denied using his car for hire. The magistrate remarked that by accepting money for the petrol the defendant had brought himself within the penal scope of the Act and would have to be convicted The Act provided for a penalty of 10s a day. but this was not a case calling for a substantia] fine. Parker would be convicted and fined 10s, with court costs (10s). NUISANCE ALLEGED The Port Chalmers Borough Council (Mr K. G. Roy) brought an action against Rosalinda Jessie Anderson (Mr W. D. Meade) for creating a nuisance on a property owned by her. through defective drains. Mr Roy said the sanitary inspector had found that the drains on the defendant’s property were creating unhealthy conditions on the adjoin-

ing property. There had been a good deal of correspondence on the subject, but nothing had been done by rthe defendant, and the council had had no alternative but to bring this action. The sanitary inspector, Alfred Ernest Barrett, said a complaint had been received about the conditions, and he had made a thorough investigation. There was a definite nuisance on the adjoining property, and he had traced the cause of this to the drains on the defendant’s property. There had been a considerable amount of correspondence, in which the defendant had been asked to repair the various defects, but nothing had been done. In his opinion, the conditions obtaining in the house owned by Mrs Anderson constituted a danger to health. The house was a small one, and there were two adults and six children living in it. The question of condemning the house had been brought up, but that was a matter to be dealt with under the housing survey.

The magistrate at this point ruled that the desirability or otherwise of condfemning the house was not relevant to the case.

Mr Meade submitted that, as the repairs required would cost anything up to £l5O. and the value of the house was no more than that, it was unreasonable to ask that the defendant should be forced to spend so much money. The defendant was fully prepared to demolish the house if the tenants could be put out. He suggested that the house might be declared by the court to be unfit for habitation and it would then be demolished.

His Worship said that while the Act gave power to make such an order, it was meant for application only in extreme cases There was nothing to show that illness had resulted from living in this house. Mr Meade suggested that the case might he adjourned till next court day so that the matter might be further discussed with the authorities. His client, he said, was prepared to do anything in reason, Agreeing to this course, the magistrate said it was only right that the defendant should know at this stage that, on the evidence before him he could not do anything but make an order for the repairs to be effected The Act provided for very substantia] penalties, a fine of £2O being the maximum, with a further penalty of £5 a day. The case was adjourned till March 4.