Trustees Of Monica Park Charged With Two Breaches.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19035, 2 April 1930, Page 9

Trustees Of Monica Park Charged With Two Breaches.

SANITATION OF GROUNDS CALLED INTO QUESTION; CASE ADJOURNED BY S.M

IN the Magistrate’s Court this morning, the Christchurch Drainage Board proceeded against the trustees of Monica Park, Henry Thomas Joynt Thacker, Edward Guthbert McCullough, and Ernest Leslie M’Keon, on two charges:— (1) That being- the owners of property rateable under the authority of the Christchurch District Drainage Act, 1907, they failed to comply with the requirements of a notice, sent in February, requiring them to connect the premises with the sewer, and further that they failed to provide water closets and urinals. (2) Allowing sewage matter from the property to be discharged into an open drain or water course known as Bell’s Creek. Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., was on the Bench. The Drainage Board was represented by Mr Cowlishaw, and the Monica Park trustees by Mr Johnston. Hearing of the case was adjourned until April 9. Mr Cowlishaw opposed the adjournment.

Mr Johnston, for the trustees, said the trustees were bare trustees only. The park was purchased in their name, but they had no power. The park was vested in them only as trustees for the Canterbury Rugby Football League. “ The difficulty is,” said Mr Johnston, “ that the trustees are desirous of having the work carried out, but the property is let a portion of the year to Stadiums, Ltd., and there is a difference of opinion, between the trustees and the League as to what proportions Stadiums should pay.” “ Eve of Reconciliation.” Continuing, Mr Johnston said that this raised the question of the trustees paying something out of their own pockets if. their action did not meet with the approval of the parties concerned. The trustees and the League were getting closer to one another and they were almost on the eve of some reconciliation. “ We have asked the League to agree to certain specifications and we have got quotations from people for the work. We are ready to sign a contract with the sanction of the League. A meeting is to be held on Monday night next, when the matter will be decided. Even if a conviction is entered, I will have to ask that the question of a fine be reserved until after Monday to see what action is taken at the meeting. I ask for an adjournment for a week.” The Magistrate said that that would refer to the first charge, but not to the second. Mr Johnston said that the trustees had been given certain requirements m si in m hhs m m m ® si m si si ® in in is ffl m.

by the City Council for the work and others by the board. “ I understand,” he said, “that the board is willing to relax their restrictions, but it is under the original restrictions that we are being charged. It is only a question of signing up. If the League does not approve, we will perforce have to find the money ourselves for the work. The trustees are not setting themselves against the authorities.” “A Menace to Health.” Mr Cowlishaw said that he was opposed to the adjournment. He contended that the trustees had had any amount of time to comply with the notice. There was no question who was liable. An agreement had been reached between the council and the Drainage Board over the matter. An offence of the kind before the Court was much worse when it related to a park of this kind than merely to a private house, as there were thousands of people going to the park every Saturday night for the broadsiding. There had been no adequate arrangements made, and it was a menace to public health. The Magistrate said that even if he entered a conviction the matter of a fine would have to be held over. “ The other people are the real offenders,” he added. Mr Cowlishaw said that the Drainage Board was not concerned with what internal arrangements the trustees and the League would make. The information was laid under the statute and not under the by-laws. The case was adjourned until April 9.