DEFIANT STAND.

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20248, 17 July 1937, Page 4

DEFIANT STAND.

WOMAN HOUSEHOLDER. ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION. (Special to Times). DUNEDIN, Friday. Whether the warrant of an inspector appointed by the City ■Corporation under the Housing Survey Act was valid without being issued under the seal of that body was an interesting point raised in the Police Court by Mr C. J. L. White during the hearing of two informations laid under the Act. The defendant was Maida Emmeline Frew, who pleaded not guilty to refusing to supply Information as required by the Act and to obstructing an inspector appointed under the Act. When Ernest James King, an inspector for the City Corporation, produced his form of authority Mr White, on behalf of Mrs Frew, objected to it on the ground that it was not issued under the seal of the corporation, but was merely signed by the town clerk. He maintained that witness had not been properly appointed by the corporation. “ Not Afraid of Anyone.” The magistrate, Mr H. W. Bundle, agreed that there might be some informality in the appointment, but said he thought the witness should have the opportunity of putting the matter before the city solicitors, lie reserved the point in the meantime. Continuing his evidence, King said that two of the council’s investigators called at defendant’s house and as a result of what they reported he visited the house In company with one of the inspectors. Mrs Frew refused to allow them to make an examination of the premises and also refused to supply any information. Witness said he threatened proceedings if she persisted in her attitude, but 6be said she was not afraid of anyone. An attempt to reason with her proved fruitless and witness and the other inspector left. To Mr White witness said it was a very large house and Mrs Frew told him that there were only five people living In it. It was explained to her that if she would supply certain particulars it might not be necessary to examine the house, but she refused to supply any particulars. Magistrate’s Warning. The magistrate said that the whole matter seemed farcical, more especially as defendant intended vacating the house very shortly. ‘He then asked defendant if she would fill in the papers. “Why should I?” defendant replied. “I have will power of my own and something tells me that I should not fill them In. As a matter of fact I won’t All them in.” The magistrate warned defendant that she was liable to a substantial fine if she persisted in her refusal. “What if I can’t pay the fine?” defendant asked. “Then you will go to gaol,” the magistrate replied. “All right, I’ll go to gaol, but I-’ll Just not fill in the papers,” said defendant. The magistrate remarked that the matter was trumpery and adjourned the case until Monday, suggesting that in the meantime defendant should reconsider her attitude.