(Before Mr. J. 8. Barton, S.M.) v There was more than the ordinary amount of business s.e_t down for hearing at the Court to-day. A first offender for drunkenness who failed to appear, forfeited his bail, 10s. Edward Kirkham admitted being drunk, but denied that he was an idle and disorderly person without means of support. Senior-Sergeant Quinn said accused had only done three, .days' work since Christina's, and had lived m and out of the hotels.— Constable M. Campbell said he had known accused for some time and during the past month he had hot dorte any work and had not been keeping nice' company.— -Constable Gribberi' gave similar evidence, and said accused had no place of abode. When arrested he had an empty beer bottle m his pocket, but no money.— Accused said he had been hanging about town for some money to enable him to get out of the country. He had never slept out, but lived at 12 Kahutia street. He denied that he had kept company with people of ill repute. He worked two days last week on the wharf. Tlie previous work was done at Tokomaru Bay. Lender cross-examination accused said lie -was a remittance man and wanted to get back to* England.— His Wor-" ship Said that accused' did not" quite come tinder the Act, but he had a narrow escape. The information was disinlawed. "■' For drunkenness aroused was fined 10s and 2s costs or 24: hours' imprisonment. William George Manslem, upon a charge bf wilful and indecent exposure m Cobden street on February. 2 was remanded until Saturday. Senior-Sergt. Quinn opposed bail m the interests ofi public safety. The "Magistrate said that fts . no evidence had been produced accused : was entitled to bail as of right. Bail, self of £100 and one surety of £100 was granted. Johti'Auld pleaded guilty to a chatlge of having done plumbing work at the Gieborhe Rowing Club witliout obtaining si permit- from the Borough Council. Mr H. .-/Chrisp represented the Borough Cbuncilr The building inspector, Mr Stewarts said that the case had been previously before the Court and the t>rpseoution failed as the connection had hot been made to the sewer. The "connection now waa made. — (Defendant ftaiid that the work had not been touched- ance the date- -of - -the- previous pro-, oeedihgs, when it was connected) up. A fine of <£l with 7s costs, or 48> hours* imprisonment jwas imposed. Thd dame accused p_eaded not iguilty to a Further breach of the Borough plumb. in£ 'b.y4awe. The Borough inspector 4aid',-.<h*' had on November 26 given Accused.' notice to test a w.c. pedestal. He had. not done. so. Witness, endeavor-, ed tp get , defendant -to attend^ with him i to make a test, but defendant said he was tooVbusy. His Worship reserved his judgment to look into the by-law, ' which he considered was not clear. — ■ ' The building inspector drew his Worship* attention to 'Section 138, whioh . somewhat • cleared the matter.
To a. further charge of a similar nature the same: defendant, pleaded -not guilty, i eta,Uri|g he had not connected the drainpipe m question to the sewer. Thp building inspector said the waste sipe discharged over a sewer gully trap. To permit had been oßtained to carry out th&iwork.— Defendant eaid the gufty was there to discharge into-Und he ?had hot connected with the ee^er>7^uilgsnent was reserved to ena^e^hik \E«>rfihip .to go -into -the- hy-laws." y„ .7 . p Charles Taylor was charged "rVithetecting- a hnotor shed without having a building perniit. Defendant said that he had only replaced one ehed with another. Mr.Ohrisp, said a lieavy penalty .was, nob sought for,- as defend--ant had made some sort of endeavor to obtain a permit. A) fine ot 5s <wit_v costs 17s 6d Or M hours' imprisonment was entered.
The Borough waterworks ■ inspector proceeded against William innocent Petchell. (Mr. Burnard) for using watier for watering trees. A fine of 5s with 17s 6d costs was imposed. . Frank Lqwnd^s did ' not ;• appear, to answer a charge of* improper use of. water. John Hay, Borough waterworks, inspector, < eaid defendant on January 18. was. watering his lawn (with a hose. On January 19 it was running all night, and on January 22, despite a warning, the hose was again running. The inspector said the JMayor did not press for a heavy penalty, , as th< pro-, ceedings were taken as a warning to others. 7 A jirie of £1 with, costs £1 8s or two days' imprisonment was imposed. ' -•■■•» The reserved judgment-, m the case of Leo. K. Doherty ('Mr. Burnard)- v. < JElipily Ba<rah Smith (Mr. Burke), was given by Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., tp r day. The claim wasfor £39 for tanks, installed.- and sewerage :work performed by plaintiff art the house he rented) from defendant. His Worship, ; after review* ing the evidence, discussing the legal .aspect of the case, gave judgment lor f.:ainti_f for- £19 18s-, with costs £2 6».