R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1626, 6 March 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

CARTERTON—WEDNESDAY. [Beforo H. S.>Wardell, R.M.] Orbell v Donald McLaren,—Breach of Rabbit Act, lined £5 and costs.' A number of civil cases were settled out of Court, M AS'IERTON -TUESDAY. Ingram vColcer,—Breach of borough by-laws, by allowing a chimney to catch fire. Mr Skipper for defendant. The informant deposed that cn the 21st of February a chimnoy on the premises of defendant was alight and burnt for ten minutes. To Mr Skipper: Ho had understood that the 'chimney was built very crooked. " There was a fire previously in it when. Mr Cullen occupied the premises.

Mr Skipper contended that his client was not responsible for the faulty construction of the chimney. The brush of the sweep would not remove the soot from an angle of tho flue. R, Woodham, chimney sweep, deposed that he had had ten years' experience in Masterton, He knew Mr Coker's chimney, having swept it on the 15th of January, Three years ago he told the occupant of the house that the chimney was not safe. Thero was an elbow within four feet of tho top which could not be properly swept. There were three or four chimnies in Masterton which were equally dangerous.

The Court thought that the sooner this fact was made known the better. Witness continued: There was no way of getting' to the chimney from the top. An ordinary chimney could go unswept for thrco or four months without danger. The informant, in answ'er *o the Court, said the Borough Council provided for the proper construction of new chimnies, but had ho regulations for altering old one's. John Check, master-bricklayer, deposed that he was engaged by Mr George Coker to view the defect in the chimney. When the chimney was alight they poured' water down the chimney without putting it out. After opening the chimney he found a bed of soot in the angle of the flue. The chimney had not been properly constructed.

To the Court: "He Lad not made any alteration to the. chimney. It was still dangerous."

The Court said to his mind the tenant appeared to have taton all reasonable steps to keep the chimney clean, If any fault existed it was with the sweep, who had 1 not communicated the knowledge he possessed of the faulty construction of the chimney. The case would be dismissed. Mr Skipper asked for an order for costs. The Court declined to grant costs, J. Elley v Jens Petersen.—Debt £3 6s 4tl. Judgment for amount and costs, ... Rapp and Hare v Frederick Parsloe, —Judgment summons M6s sd, MiBeard for plaintiff. Order' made for payment within seven days or fourteen 'days imprisonment. Eapp and: Hare, v > Richard 0,. McKenzie.—Debt £2, 'Mr Beard for plaintiffs. Judgment for amount and .costs," ■ " I

~T. Jago v E.Bezar,—Debt £l6los Bd, Mr Beard for .plaintiff, Judgment for amount and costs. . 0. Dixon v R. H.' Ohinchen.—Debt JJ3G 16s 4d. Mr Qawith for plaintiff, Judgment for amount and costs,